Debates
04 Jan 10
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo in your view is that higher taxes just consume a lot of excess money that was sitting around that nobody cared about anyway?
Let's see, from the viewpoint of the rich...
Cons of higher taxes:
- Less material goods and services you don't really need in the first place.
Pros of higher taxes:
- Lower crime.
- Higher GDP, providing more investment opportunities.
- Better business climate.
- Better social stability.
- Higher labour productivity, providing a more skilled workforce so businesses are more profitable.
It's quite a tricky one.
And that money can be put to use in highly productive social programs that will cause people to turn away from a life of crime, get an education, and start living right?
04 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseAre you going to answer it? I hope you do better than uncle Karl.
Maybe there's an important question still to be responded:
At whose and what expense did the overtly wealthy people get their wealth?
...
Kind question to native English speakers: is the question grammatically correct? Thanks.
04 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseI think the question is phrased with an intention in mind.
How many years it took him to structure a reasonable answer?
I ask you because it may take me a little bit more years than him 🙂
What's your theory?
You are a very wealthy man from a global perspective. At whose expense did you become that wealthy?
In short, being wealthy is not enough for me to condemn or point the finger at. However, I'm also not delusional to not understand that there are many instances of exploitation and these should be addressed. I also think it's much more effective to use redistribution in order to provide enough means for everybody, so that they need not accept exploitation.
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358so would you personally be willing to pay more in taxes so that we could reduce tax levels on the rich until everyone had exactly the same percentage of their property being taxed?
You seem to think the rich have done something wrong.
The reason I say that is, you seem to be willing to take something away from rich people for no specific reason. That suggests that rich people have more restricted rights -- specifically property rights -- than other people. Normally, we don't take away individuals' rights except as punishment fo ...[text shortened]... criminal act.
So exactly what criminal act or acts do you think rich people are guilty of?
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI concur with you.
I think the question is phrased with an intention in mind.
You are a very wealthy man from a global perspective. At whose expense did you become that wealthy?
In short, being wealthy is not enough for me to condemn or point the finger at. However, I'm also not delusional to not understand that there are many instances of exploitation and these should b ...[text shortened]... ion in order to provide enough means for everybody, so that they need not accept exploitation.
Indeed, being wealthy is not enough and rather exploitation should be addressed
as a starting point to structure a redistribution approach which attacks
the causes of exploitation without severing the drive to pool capital and
venture it.
Triple bottom line, stakeholder approach, etc.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by SeitseThe problem with your question IMHO is that a "what" can't have an expense, only a "who" can have an expense.
Maybe there's an important question still to be responded:
At whose and what expense did the overtly wealthy people get their wealth?
...
Kind question to native English speakers: is the question grammatically correct? Thanks.
Elsewhere we see the word 'exploitation' being thrown around like it is something undesirable. It is not. Any employer/employee relationship is one of exploitation, any value for value exchange is exploitation.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by SeitseI'd say either "At whose and at what expense" or "at whose expense" depending on what you want to emphasize. But that was pretty good. It might even be correct.
Maybe there's an important question still to be responded:
At whose and what expense did the overtly wealthy people get their wealth?
...
Kind question to native English speakers: is the question grammatically correct? Thanks.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358The Right to Own Property is often conveniently misinterpreted by rich people. Nobody is allowed to own everything. If they were King George would never have been criticised for owning everything in the 13 colonies.
You seem to think the rich have done something wrong.
The reason I say that is, you seem to be willing to take something away from rich people for no specific reason. That suggests that rich people have more restricted rights -- specifically property rights -- than other people. Normally, we don't take away individuals' rights except as punishment fo ...[text shortened]... criminal act.
So exactly what criminal act or acts do you think rich people are guilty of?
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358When one person owns so much of the wealth, lots of money that could be circulating in commerce sits in a bank somewhere. A person making $50,000 per year is likely to spend the vast majority of his earnings, thus, keeping the economy going and benefiting everyone (including the rich). A person making $50,000,000 per year is likely to live a lavish lifestyle and still only spend a very small percentage of his earnings.
So in your view is that higher taxes just consume a lot of excess money that was sitting around that nobody cared about anyway?
And that money can be put to use in highly productive social programs that will cause people to turn away from a life of crime, get an education, and start living right?
Don't believe me? Look at this another way. You can't get away from the laws of math, so at the current tax levels it would be impossible to have a flat tax without HUGE tax increases for the poor and middle class. What would that do to our economy and how would it affect the rich who got a tax cut?
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by WajomaI would agree with you... if you consider the environment a 'who' instead of a 'what'.
The problem with your question IMHO is that a "what" can't have an expense, only a "who" can have an expense.
Elsewhere we see the word 'exploitation' being thrown around like it is something undesirable. It is not. Any employer/employee relationship is one of exploitation, any value for value exchange is exploitation.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPoor people have a convenient misinterpretation, too. If someone follows all the rules and gets rich -- then it's, "Oh, wait. That was WAY too successful. Give some of that away". That's like changing the rules of the game because you didn't win.
The Right to Own Property is often conveniently misinterpreted by rich people. Nobody is allowed to own everything. If they were King George would never have been criticised for owning everything in the 13 colonies.
I have no problem with setting good rules but penalizing success after the fact is not right.
As for nobody owning everything material -- I agree. I would say that most of the rich have relatively more "money" than "stuff". I've never heard of a rich person buying up all the frozen pizzas in the world just so that they could leave the rest of us without any -- would be rather pointless.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358But to have a monopoly on frozen pizza, now that might be quite lucrative.
As for nobody owning everything material -- I agree. I would say that most of the rich have relatively more "money" than "stuff". I've never heard of a rich person buying up all the frozen pizzas in the world just so that they could leave the rest of us without any -- would be rather pointless.
Why -- in your perspective -- is monopolisation wrong?