Benevolence: Moral Obligations of the Rich

[Michael Noire]

Innovation - Exploration of new Frontiers, R&D, Scholarships, Science Fairs, and Universities
Infrastructure - Bridges, Canals, Hospitals, Roads, and Schools
Inspiration - Art, Activities, Cultural Events, History, Music, Museums, and Parks

These are the core responsibilities of the Rich. The Idea that the responsibility of the Rich is to pay higher taxes is an ethical fallacy, for it assumes the greatest good can be achieved by obligating the wealthy to pay into a system where their contributions are routed and redistributed largely to the collectors and through a system of political nepotism. This system makes sure the best possible solutions are never achieved, and the largest fraction of revenues are abused, rather than used.

A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars go to a space program or to blowing up children in some poverty stricken middle eastern territory. A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars are spent on the cure for his wife's cancer, or on a monstrous fund raiser and banquette with no actual dollars going to cancer research itself. Tax dollars are highly inefficient, and seldom beneficent.

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in, but that should not be construed as a responsibility to pay even more taxes that do little to improve our quality of life.

[imblaine2]

I don't understand you argument? Should they be allowed to pick where their tax dollars go and don't go? Should they not have them raised because it possibly wont go exactly where they want it to all the time? Or should they not pay any at all because it's ineffective and seldom beneficial?

[Naiax Sidorenka]

Michael Noire

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in,

I particularly like this statement. I can make logical math out of it.

The obligation to better the society one lives in is directly proportional to the influence one has on it.

[The Dragoncat]

Finally someone who has done their homework

[Bubsy]

Dragobo then thinks they should lobby for more safety net programs and lobby against wars. That god use of moneys thinks Dragobo.

Populous has be healthy, they more tasty that way.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

The rich should be kind to the poor if only to keep us from showing up at their place with our torches and pitchforks.

[Exoth XIII]

Michael Noire

A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars go to a space program or to blowing up children in some poverty stricken middle eastern territory. A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars are spent on the cure for his wife's cancer, or on a monstrous fund raiser and banquette with no actual dollars going to cancer research itself. Tax dollars are highly inefficient, and seldom beneficent.

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in, but that should not be construed as a responsibility to pay even more taxes that do little to improve our quality of life.

Let us be frank. After paying their tax dollars, rich people have plenty of regular dollars left, and it's pretty clear that they don't like spending it on higher pursuits; most money winds up hoarded, stored in investments as a means of generating yet more money. To these people, money isn't a means, but an end.

Taxes won't get the rich to use all of their money well, but at least some of it goes to infrastructure. While actual benevolence is ideal, it's seldom seen. (The most notable example of a benevolent rich guy, in my mind, would be Lorenzo De' Medici, whose family was wealthy, and controlled a city. He turned it into a cultural center, and helped to spark the Italian Renaissance.)

[The Herald of Death]

Why would you trust in the discretion of the rich instead? That's just stupid.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Naiax Sidorenka

Michael Noire

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in,

I particularly like this statement. I can make logical math out of it.

The obligation to better the society one lives in is directly proportional to the influence one has on it.

There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.

[Programminglinguist]

Michael Noire

Innovation - Exploration of new Frontiers, R&D, Scholarships, Science Fairs, and Universities
Infrastructure - Bridges, Canals, Hospitals, Roads, and Schools
Inspiration - Art, Activities, Cultural Events, History, Music, Museums, and Parks

These are the core responsibilities of the Rich. The Idea that the responsibility of the Rich is to pay higher taxes is an ethical fallacy, for it assumes the greatest good can be achieved by obligating the wealthy to pay into a system where their contributions are routed and redistributed largely to the collectors and through a system of political nepotism. This system makes sure the best possible solutions are never achieved, and the largest fraction of revenues are abused, rather than used.

A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars go to a space program or to blowing up children in some poverty stricken middle eastern territory. A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars are spent on the cure for his wife's cancer, or on a monstrous fund raiser and banquette with no actual dollars going to cancer research itself. Tax dollars are highly inefficient, and seldom beneficent.

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in, but that should not be construed as a responsibility to pay even more taxes that do little to improve our quality of life.

The rich should pay higher taxes because they can and that's the only feasible way to have the current level of public service. The practical reasons seem to be hidden behind the ideological ones, but the ideology only survives because of the practical reasons.

The poor can't pay enough taxes to have the great army that the U.S. has today, nor can the poor pay enough to protect most public services offered. SO, the responsibility falls on those who can pay for such things, and that is why the rich must do it. Tax dollars do more good than bad in America, and if you want to say otherwise then the proper place to do so might have been with the USSR.

Of course a rich man can't determine where his tax dollars go; neither can a poor man; neither can any man except the president since he's the only person with significant individual power in America with his veto power. You say they're inefficient but your words aren't backed by anything and you probably wouldn't be so easy to attack tax dollars once you realize that the sidewalks and libraries and schools you attended were all public services brought to you by tax dollars. The lack of efficiency is pretty much built into the system of public works. Even Adam Smith has a good word on public services:

Quote:

According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to . . . First, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion . . . secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it . . . and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit would never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.

tl;dr OP is dumb.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Why is it the rich's problem?

Why not make everyone pay equal amounts for equal use?

[low iq 111]

uh ******** all of that. the rich should either be taxed more, if the government is not corrupt, or the rich should simply give their money away. people need to stop taking more than they need. why? because we need to start making sure all humans have what they need and then after that we should be promoting life and growth on our world. why? because the earth is one of the rare places that supports life and we as humans should try and allow as many lifeforms and precious things have a chance to live. because that is the right thing to do. and i am 'pro-life'.

[low iq 111]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Why is it the rich's problem?

Why not make everyone pay equal amounts for equal use?

if someone owns more they should have more responsibility than someone who owns less

[Andy Worhal]

If the rich we're taxed less, we'd have less lazy people in my opinion.

[low iq 111]

The Herald of Death

Why would you trust in the discretion of the rich instead? That's just stupid.

i had an epiphany this week. that was i don't think the rich are truly evil. some of them are. but i think a lot of them simply don't know what to do with all their money. they are truly regular people who happened to have a hugely successful career.