for those people who love to hate on the wealthy...

[Meow Mix]

I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?

I condemn providing material to the charties!

I couldn't resist :ignore:

 

[Edenborne]

I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?

The poor are more secured in that they are typically more humble and appreciative. With wealth comes more responsibility, it's simply against Christian commands and morals to enjoy wealth in indifference to others.

Giving generously is in all honesty a rarity among the wealthy. Sitting on thirty million dollars, for example, and writing checks that don't even go in the 6 figures is not really generous. In fact, one could even say that's like throwing scraps under the table.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've often asked the question: what are fair entitlements in a society?

Of course there will be extremes on either end of the spectrum. A few here and there will answer that there are no fair entitlements....no water, no education, no shelter, no food, no security. A few here and there will answer with many entitlements....free housing, free education, free health care, free retirement, free maternity leave.

I assume most people fall somewhere in between.

The question was asked if people ever deserve to be wealthy. It's also been asked repeatedly if people ever deserve to be poor.

Both fall under the umbrella of determining what are minimum entitlements to humans regardless of citizenry or not. Essentially, what defines inalienable human rights? What defines wealth? And what are the parameters of wealth in a society that has clearly definable inalienable rights of all humans that live within its borders?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?

Absolutely, someone can deserve to be rich.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Both fall under the umbrella of determining what are minimum entitlements to humans regardless of citizenry or not. Essentially, what defines inalienable human rights? What defines wealth? And what are the parameters of wealth in a society that has clearly definable inalienable rights of all humans that live within its borders?

However a person answers these questions about entitlements, isn't it reasonable that entitlements should scale with the overall wealth of society?

 

[LuisDantas]

However a person answers these questions about entitlements, isn't it reasonable that entitlements should scale with the overall wealth of society?

In the abstract, it certainly is.


But not at any social price. And not regardless of consequences, or of degree.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

However a person answers these questions about entitlements, isn't it reasonable that entitlements should scale with the overall wealth of society?

Yes, I think, when we consider "wealth" to be synonymous with finite resources.

A wealthy person can't be considered in our economy to earn 90% of the air in the atmosphere. But if it was ever made possible, can that person be fairly entitled to 90% of the air if there was a way to earn it? Does that person deserve to keep 90% of the atmosphere to himself or herself.....if they ever were considered to have "earned" it? And would it be greedy of other people who never "earned" that air in the atmosphere to have it distributed to the rest of us?

 

[Octavia156]

I've often asked the question: what are fair entitlements in a society?

Of course there will be extremes on either end of the spectrum. A few here and there will answer that there are no fair entitlements....no water, no education, no shelter, no food, no security. A few here and there will answer with many entitlements....free housing, free education, free health care, free retirement, free maternity leave.

I assume most people fall somewhere in between.

The question was asked if people ever deserve to be wealthy. It's also been asked repeatedly if people ever deserve to be poor.

Both fall under the umbrella of determining what are minimum entitlements to humans regardless of citizenry or not. Essentially, what defines inalienable human rights? What defines wealth? And what are the parameters of wealth in a society that has clearly definable inalienable rights of all humans that live within its borders?

Freud offers an intersting take on this, in his short read: Civilisation and its Discontents.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Freud offers an intersting take on this, in his short read: Civilisation and its Discontents.

Interesting. I'll see about giving it a read.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?

This is a great opportunity for you. Who should deserve to be rich in your opinion? What does being rich even mean to you?

I have asked similar questions of slaves. Why did you as a slave serve a master and who deserved to be a master?

I am curious how will you answer. So many angles. Ad hom, evade, ignore... Perhaps learn to spell charities so the idea of you donating to one might seem more viable.

Who deserves to be rich really?

 

[Visionary28]

Not really. Not until and unless poverty becomes a non-issue worldwide. So no.

Of course, there is no point in buggering people about that, either. So we just have to be realistic and reasonable about human nature.

All the same, the current extremes are nothing short of obscene.





Then they show that they have a conscience, and I commend them for that. It is somewhat hard to be generous.

Actually deserving what is currently understood as wealth, though, is a very different kettle of fish. That is not really within human possibilities. Not in the foreseeable future.

First, who should deside what is to much wealth? The politicians? The bottom 25% of earners? The "middle class"? What number should we agree on? Who gets final say? One man's benchmark for wealthy is not the same as anothers . Who has the responsibility to make sure the "underpriviledged" all are equal earners? Who decides what a person or family requires in earnings to have their basic needs met? What are basic needs? Should the well to do be responsibile for providing additional luxuries to those in poverty? Just as we cannot agree on what wealthy is, we can not agree on what "poor" is? If we raise the earnings of all below the poverty line will that end "poverty"?

This is just the start of the problems and questions that would need to be answered if we even agreed that the world should be "fair" and everyone should be equal earners. The reality is that there will never be equality in any aspect of life. We are part of the natural order of nature. The predator who has stronger health, intellegence, work ethic, and instinct usually gets more worms. Just as those people who have put themselves in the right place at the right time have also increased their chances for financial success. "Poverty" is as much of a mindset as it is a physical disadvantage. A person's success can ultimately only come from themselves through their own efforts and independence from their government and others.

 

[LuisDantas]

First, who should deside what is to much wealth?

Everyone, actually. It is pretty much a moral question, and therefore an universal concern.

The politicians? The bottom 25% of earners? The "middle class"? What number should we agree on?

Number? It is not a matter of numbers, even if we had a clear way obtaining them.

Who gets final say? One man's benchmark for wealthy is not the same as anothers.

The way I see it, this is in practice a self-correcting problem if actual awareness of the consequences of the current disparities is attained.

Who has the responsibility to make sure the "underpriviledged" all are equal earners?

What is an equal earner, and why would we want to ensure some group to be composed of those?

Who decides what a person or family requires in earnings to have their basic needs met?

It is something of a distributed decision. People will feel moved to notice and to react to the lack of those needs in very varied, personal ways, of course.

All the same, there are some basic, pretty solid benchmarks. An obvious one is access to decent meals and shelter. Another is basic health care. A far less obvious yet perhaps even more important one is access to typical society subject matters, since their lack is something of a hereditary curse that aggravates itself at each generation.

What are basic needs?

Those whose lack causes a certain measure of suffering that can't really be practically solved in any other way.

Should the well to do be responsibile for providing additional luxuries to those in poverty?

Actually, the way I see it they are. Interconnectedness and mutual responsibility are core values to me. It takes a lot of giving to actually "earn" the right of being "well to do".

But it depends a bit on what you call luxuries.

Just as we cannot agree on what wealthy is, we can not agree on what "poor" is? If we raise the earnings of all below the poverty line will that end "poverty"?

There is indeed something of a fluid nature to poverty. But alas, that is not even an important consideration at this point in our history.

This is just the start of the problems and questions that would need to be answered if we even agreed that the world should be "fair" and everyone should be equal earners. The reality is that there will never be equality in any aspect of life. We are part of the natural order of nature. The predator who has stronger health, intellegence, work ethic, and instinct usually gets more worms. Just as those people who have put themselves in the right place at the right time have also increased their chances for financial success. "Poverty" is as much of a mindset as it is a physical disadvantage. A person's success can ultimately only come from themselves through their own efforts and independence from their government and others.

We don't need equality, but we sure are failing if we can't fight the excessive disparities effectivelly.

 

[MoonWater]

First, who should deside what is to much wealth? The politicians? The bottom 25% of earners? The "middle class"? What number should we agree on? Who gets final say? One man's benchmark for wealthy is not the same as anothers . Who has the responsibility to make sure the "underpriviledged" all are equal earners? Who decides what a person or family requires in earnings to have their basic needs met? What are basic needs? Should the well to do be responsibile for providing additional luxuries to those in poverty? Just as we cannot agree on what wealthy is, we can not agree on what "poor" is? If we raise the earnings of all below the poverty line will that end "poverty"?

This is just the start of the problems and questions that would need to be answered if we even agreed that the world should be "fair" and everyone should be equal earners. The reality is that there will never be equality in any aspect of life. We are part of the natural order of nature. The predator who has stronger health, intellegence, work ethic, and instinct usually gets more worms. Just as those people who have put themselves in the right place at the right time have also increased their chances for financial success. "Poverty" is as much of a mindset as it is a physical disadvantage. A person's success can ultimately only come from themselves through their own efforts and independence from their government and others.

great, another person who thinks people are only poor because they don't work hard enough. Look if one's "own efforts" really was the ultimate decider of success than my boyfriend's mother would be a very wealthy woman. Instead she is lower middle class, barely able to keep up with expenses. Success has just as much to do with where the dice land as it does one's work ethic, perhaps even more so cause, especially when it comes to those in poverty, the dice are loaded against them.

 

[Visionary28]

Everyone, actually. It is pretty much a moral question, and therefore an universal concern.

If everyone decides we will be in the same situation. If person A decides he would like to continue earning or keeping his money that is a personal choice. if person B decides he has earned enough money and would like to share that is a personal choice. Both would feel they are acting on their individual morals regardless of if we agree.

Number? It is not a matter of numbers, even if we had a clear way obtaining them.

I disagree. Money can only be represented in numbers. We would be required to have a measurable standard. For example an earnings cap or percent paid on yearly or monthly income in addition to standard taxes. Deciding who pays more on a case by case basis would be even less fair or equal right?
I agree, there is no clear way of obtaining the correct number thus our problem.

The way I see it, this is in practice a self-correcting problem if actual awareness of the consequences of the current disparities is attained.

Again, a person would have to be aware of what is considered excess wealth (a number). With that, each will have a different opinion..again who decides? Unless forced by law or taxation a person can not be obligated to "self-correct the problem" or "understand the consequences". To give to others is a personal choice despite how we feel morally about it.

What is an equal earner, and why would we want to ensure some group to be composed of those?

Once the basic needs were met will some still be unsatisfied that they are not given more?

It is something of a distributed decision. People will feel moved to notice and to react to the lack of those needs in very varied, personal ways, of course.
All the same, there are some basic, pretty solid benchmarks. An obvious one is access to decent meals and shelter. Another is basic health care. A far less obvious yet perhaps even more important one is access to typical society subject matters, since their lack is something of a hereditary curse that aggravates itself at each generation.

So it is a personal decision to "feel moved to notice and to react to" these personal needs. Should every able citizen be obligated by law through higher taxes or government mandates? If it is personal choice then many people already donate large portions of money to help meet these basic needs. You are clearly saying it is not enough, therfore we have to again come back to a fixed amount or percentage. What is enough for each who can give? Maybe the problem does not lie with the greed of the "wealthy". Perhaps our governments should be already taking in enough through taxation to help meet the basic needs of those in poverty? Maybe our governments need to eliminate wasteful spending and prioritize what is most important for its citizens?

Those whose lack causes a certain measure of suffering that can't really be practically solved in any other way.

I think lack of basic needs is a problem that can't entirely be solved with money. Education and training are just as important in helping people to eventually meet their basic needs.

Actually, the way I see it they are. Interconnectedness and mutual responsibility are core values to me. It takes a lot of giving to actually "earn" the right of being "well to do".

We can give in other ways apart from money. As I said, education and life skill training are essential for people to escape "poverty". We can continue to lift them up through financial means but they will likely return to the same hardships if they are unable to eventually help themselves. Yes, education and training cost money but we are hopefully saving money in the long run by teaching responsibility.
But it depends a bit on what you call luxuries.

There is indeed something of a fluid nature to poverty. But alas, that is not even an important consideration at this point in our history.

Only that poverty is often relative and basic needs are also relative to each individual.

We don't need equality, but we sure are failing if we can't fight the excessive disparities effectivelly.

There will always be those who are considered in poverty and always those who are considered wealthy. Most of us likely fall somwhere in between. It may not be "fair" in our own minds but it is unavoidable. We can strive to help others but it should always come down to an individual's choice. To take from one to give to another is a very slippery slope no matter how morally justified it may seem.

 

[LuisDantas]

There will always be those who are considered in poverty and always those who are considered wealthy.

Yes. The question could conceivably be purely academical.

And hopefully it will some day be, too. Alas, that is a very distant day.

Most of us likely fall somwhere in between. It may not be "fair" in our own minds but it is unavoidable.

The existence of some level of disparity is all but unavoidable, true.

The existence of the current extremes is however criminally inacceptable and ultimately almost too easy to avoid.

We can strive to help others but it should always come down to an individual's choice.

... to acknowledge his own duty to the community, yes.

To take from one to give to another is a very slippery slope no matter how morally justified it may seem.

Yes, that is my point exactly.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

The govt. is trashed by those who are saying they paid bribes to the govt., openly, to those whom they feel are close to themselves, and also want to know. These people are not happy with the govt., they elect, and they tell others, they resent the bribes they pay? How can they justify their govt., when the govt. is supposed to do nothing, but still be a symbol which makes their wealth legitimate?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

In the US, the men that didn't pay for their beer would be the richest

 

[darkendless]

Having had a difficult few weeks I can tell you how much less I care about fairness. In Australia things are set up to benefit people who've had a bad upbringing.

We were robbed on the 12th of June. I lost my car and my laptop and the better looking half lost all her jewelery. We're fully insured but I was told that as a high income earner I'd never win a civil case against the people who broke into our house because they're "disadvantaged." therefore, I have to cop insurance excesses and loss of value to my car on the chin " because I can afford to."

I said to police all I want to do is recover the cost of our losses having to make insurance claims and the depreciation of my car. Apparently if you're a screw up from state housing you're entitled to more civil rights than the people who work hard to pay for your welfare benefits and drugs.

I love society.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

If we talk about taxes how about we talk about the real issue. Taxes are lower than they have ever been. Taxes were far higher before. People then complain about how now there are less loopholes but the effective tax rate is still higher.

Corporate tax rate is the real problem rather than individual tax rates. Corporate tax rates are stupidly low. America has the "highest" corportate tax rate in the world and yet our effective corporate tax rate is usually between .5 and 5%.

Lets talk about things for a second now.

The first 4 men get to drink for free but their drinks are terrible and in dirty glasses.
The next few men get glasses and pay slightly more. Then the last 2-3 men only pay a small percentage of what they should actually owe by the system and they rack up an immense bar tab that the top 3 convience the others that its the bottom 4 men that are responsible.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Having had a difficult few weeks I can tell you how much less I care about fairness. In Australia things are set up to benefit people who've had a bad upbringing.

We were robbed on the 12th of June. I lost my car and my laptop and the better looking half lost all her jewelery. We're fully insured but I was told that as a high income earner I'd never win a civil case against the people who broke into our house because they're "disadvantaged." therefore, I have to cop insurance excesses and loss of value to my car on the chin " because I can afford to."

I said to police all I want to do is recover the cost of our losses having to make insurance claims and the depreciation of my car. Apparently if you're a screw up from state housing you're entitled to more civil rights than the people who work hard to pay for your welfare benefits and drugs.

I love society.

When you say you where "robbed" I take it you where present when this happened?

If this happened to me, these folks would be DRT, (Dead Right There).