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:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?
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.I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?
However a person answers these questions about entitlements, isn't it reasonable that entitlements should scale with the overall wealth of society?MysticSang'ha said: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?
However a person answers these questions about entitlements, isn't it reasonable that entitlements should scale with the overall wealth of society?
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.
I just gotta ask a question, can anyone deserve to be rich? What if they give freely to charties?
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.
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.
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.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.
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?Number? It is not a matter of numbers, even if we had a clear way obtaining them.
I agree, there is no clear way of obtaining the correct number thus our problem.
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.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.
Once the basic needs were met will some still be unsatisfied that they are not given more?What is an equal earner, and why would we want to ensure some group to be composed of those?
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?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.
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.Those whose lack causes a certain measure of suffering that can't really be practically solved in any other way.
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.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.
Only that poverty is often relative and basic needs are also relative to each individual.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.