Benevolence: Moral Obligations of the Rich

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.

and so why do you not want this to change???????????????????

Why would I want it to change?

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Project 429

Old Blue Collar Joe

Salary caps are bullshit. Someone builds a business up to where it is worth millions or billions, that is the fruit of their labor and effort, and risk taking.

We would do well to stop saying that billionaires are anything but incredibly lucky. It takes a special kind of arrogance to say that billions (billions!) are earned while people still are working for less then a dollar a day. This leads to an equally special brand of obnoxious Randian power fantasies and delusions of invincibility that make the upper class goddamn insufferable and completely unsympathetic.

Like I said earlier; an obligation is not a solution but to pretend they made it themselves is pants-on-head retarded.

There are many different kinds of work that aren't simple manual labor. You get paid for your skills

And as far as creating a business and making billions of dollars from that goes, to say that that's not earning it, you're absurd

Starting a business is incredibly risky, and making it succeed is incredibly difficult. Making it successful to the point of getting rich from it is nearly impossible

starting a business is not necessarily risky. and you would still be lucky to earn a billion dollars from it.

lol...you prove yourself wrong when you say starting a business is risky, but then you said there is no luck involved in earning billions of dollars.

Alright, I'll respond again

But any personal insults, and I'm done. I'm not putting up with your bullshit anymore


How is starting a business not risky? Explain

There is some luck in earning billions of dollars, yes. There's luck in everything
But it's much more about the skill and work

>i'm not putting up with insults
>insults another person
rolleyes
anywayyyyy....
i said starting a business is not necessarily risky.

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

When is starting a business not risky?

When did I say I didn't want to help people?

[low iq 111]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

There are many different kinds of work that aren't simple manual labor. You get paid for your skills

And as far as creating a business and making billions of dollars from that goes, to say that that's not earning it, you're absurd

Starting a business is incredibly risky, and making it succeed is incredibly difficult. Making it successful to the point of getting rich from it is nearly impossible

starting a business is not necessarily risky. and you would still be lucky to earn a billion dollars from it.

lol...you prove yourself wrong when you say starting a business is risky, but then you said there is no luck involved in earning billions of dollars.

Alright, I'll respond again

But any personal insults, and I'm done. I'm not putting up with your bullshit anymore


How is starting a business not risky? Explain

There is some luck in earning billions of dollars, yes. There's luck in everything
But it's much more about the skill and work

>i'm not putting up with insults
>insults another person
rolleyes
anywayyyyy....
i said starting a business is not necessarily risky.

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

When is starting a business not risky?

When did I say I didn't want to help people?

http://www.martynemko.com/articles/low-risk-high-payoff-self-employment-ideas_id1300

when you said you think people deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves even though that money would be better spent on starving people or helping the environment

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

[low iq 111]

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.

and so why do you not want this to change???????????????????

Why would I want it to change?

do you not care about starving people or the environmental problems we have right now?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.

and so why do you not want this to change???????????????????

Why would I want it to change?

do you not care about starving people or the environmental problems we have right now?

I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.

[Panda-Harlequin]

Michael Noire

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.

Bull. The rich have no specific obligation except to spend the money they either have earned or simply have in the way they see fit. If they so choose to do public works projects, give to charities, or they enjoy watching children get blown up in third world countries, then that is their prerogative. The rich, like the upper middle class, the middle class, the lower middle class, and the poor working class have no specific obligation to be any more moral or upstanding than the rest of society. True, they receive more scrutiny when they aren't, but they hold no responsibility to be as such.

Now, onto taxes. The government, like any business or institution run on money, is always looking to make more money. How can they do that? Tax the crap out of people who don't have it? No, that has never worked well in the past as any Robin Hood or American Revolution will tell you. Tax the crap out of people who do have it? There we go. Is it fair? Not really. Is it a slapdash solution to a problem that took us years to get into and may in the future bear fruit and help us on the road to digging ourself out of quite the tremendous hole? Possibly. Only time will tell, and I have no crystal ball.

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.

Nor should he/she (after all there are rich women). After all, those rich people are not elected officials. As such, they should have no say in where their tax dollars go because that's not their job. However, I hate to say this. It may not actually be a fair system, but no one claimed it to be. In fact, even the commercials, are very propaganda-esque in the fact that they seem to be villifying rich people for the sake of being rich and saying that (just because they can pay more) they should pay more for the sake of the country they live in and to help the economy and the defecit. It's a cheap a** ploy to make rich people look like the Villains who got us into the mess to begin with. So, no one is really claiming it to be a fair system,

Michael Noire

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.

Once again, no they don't have any such obligation. However, despite it being unfair, it may just happen, so it needs to be dealt with head on. And, I'm sorry to say that, I know it sucks, and I know it's slightly unfair, but the rich will get through it. They most always do.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

There are many different kinds of work that aren't simple manual labor. You get paid for your skills

And as far as creating a business and making billions of dollars from that goes, to say that that's not earning it, you're absurd

Starting a business is incredibly risky, and making it succeed is incredibly difficult. Making it successful to the point of getting rich from it is nearly impossible

starting a business is not necessarily risky. and you would still be lucky to earn a billion dollars from it.

lol...you prove yourself wrong when you say starting a business is risky, but then you said there is no luck involved in earning billions of dollars.

Alright, I'll respond again

But any personal insults, and I'm done. I'm not putting up with your bullshit anymore


How is starting a business not risky? Explain

There is some luck in earning billions of dollars, yes. There's luck in everything
But it's much more about the skill and work

>i'm not putting up with insults
>insults another person
rolleyes
anywayyyyy....
i said starting a business is not necessarily risky.

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

When is starting a business not risky?

When did I say I didn't want to help people?

http://www.martynemko.com/articles/low-risk-high-payoff-self-employment-ideas_id1300

when you said you think people deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves even though that money would be better spent on starving people or helping the environment

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

You said not necessarily risky. You just posted some "ideas" that are less risky, but still a risk
And would still require much dedication, work, and intelligence to make any real money from

Deserve? Yes. But should they? No
There is a difference

It's just like how most people would agree that smoking cigarettes a lot is bad for a person, but most people don't want to ban cigarettes

Excuse me, but I've said many times that if I had the money, I would either use that money and use it to help people myself, or donate it to various charities. I have never said that I don't want to help other people. Stop putting words in my mouth

[low iq 111]

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.

and so why do you not want this to change???????????????????

Why would I want it to change?

do you not care about starving people or the environmental problems we have right now?

I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.

except when i propose a wage cap that's not ******** anyone over whatsoever.

"property rights" no you are not. you are a supporter for your idea of what is right but that isn't the only way. don't start acting like your way is the very definition of "rights"....that's wrong.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

It may piss you off, but supply and demand determine someone's worth, not some touchy feely bullshit.

and so why do you not want this to change???????????????????

Why would I want it to change?

do you not care about starving people or the environmental problems we have right now?

I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.

except when i propose a wage cap that's not ******** anyone over whatsoever.

"property rights" no you are not. you are a supporter for your idea of what is right but that isn't the only way. don't start acting like your way is the very definition of "rights"....that's wrong.

Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.

[low iq 111]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

low iq 111

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Alright, I'll respond again

But any personal insults, and I'm done. I'm not putting up with your bullshit anymore


How is starting a business not risky? Explain

There is some luck in earning billions of dollars, yes. There's luck in everything
But it's much more about the skill and work

>i'm not putting up with insults
>insults another person
rolleyes
anywayyyyy....
i said starting a business is not necessarily risky.

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

When is starting a business not risky?

When did I say I didn't want to help people?

http://www.martynemko.com/articles/low-risk-high-payoff-self-employment-ideas_id1300

when you said you think people deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves even though that money would be better spent on starving people or helping the environment

"But it's much more about the skill and work"
prove it. and then prove why someone should still deserve to keep billions of dollars for themselves and why you don't want to help other humans or other life forms on this earth.

You said not necessarily risky. You just posted some "ideas" that are less risky, but still a risk
And would still require much dedication, work, and intelligence to make any real money from

Deserve? Yes. But should they? No
There is a difference

It's just like how most people would agree that smoking cigarettes a lot is bad for a person, but most people don't want to ban cigarettes

Excuse me, but I've said many times that if I had the money, I would either use that money and use it to help people myself, or donate it to various charities. I have never said that I don't want to help other people. Stop putting words in my mouth

if it is less risky then it is not risky. you can't say anything above 0 risk is risky.

" would still require much dedication, work, and intelligence to make any real money from"

prove it. then prove that a person deserves billions of dollars from it while others who work just as hard to earn a dollar a day.

"It's just like how most people would agree that smoking cigarettes a lot is bad for a person, but most people don't want to ban cigarettes"

what? what is this supposed to prove?

" I have never said that I don't want to help other people."

first of all you've never said that or at least not 'many times'....this is wrong because if we simply had a wage cap, we could help other people. but instead you allow the bullies to continue their destructive ways. you can't just say that you would help if you had the chance, you do have the chance....but you are not using it. when you hear of child abuse you are required to report it to police. there are children starving right now who need you to bring up the issue to the people who can make a difference (like the police).

[low iq 111]

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Why would I want it to change?

do you not care about starving people or the environmental problems we have right now?

I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.

except when i propose a wage cap that's not ******** anyone over whatsoever.

"property rights" no you are not. you are a supporter for your idea of what is right but that isn't the only way. don't start acting like your way is the very definition of "rights"....that's wrong.

Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.

how is putting a wage cap on personal income at ~10million ******** someone over?

[I AM R U]

Yami no Hitokiri

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

Pretty much this.

Also, its all very well for someone to claim that a significant contribution is the improvement of society culturally, but who benefits from this anyway? The rich. They have the time and money to afford to enjoy these things, while the poor lack the education, leisure time etc. to make use of such things. ******** ridiculous, and evidence of a total lack of understanding about poverty. Why not just stand there and say "Let them eat cake!"

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

low iq 111

if it is less risky then it is not risky. you can't say anything above 0 risk is risky.

Why not?
Placing a $1 bet on a football game is risky, technically

Quote:

prove it.

Because otherwise everyone would be creating extremely successful businesses like in the link you posted
There's a limited amount of money that can be made from any individual business type, so only the smart and lucky make it big

Quote:

then prove that a person deserves billions of dollars from it while others who work just as hard to earn a dollar a day.

It isn't about how much you work, it's about if your work can be done by others
This idea has been pointed out to you many times

Quote:

what? what is this supposed to prove?

It shows that just because you want people to do something, you don't force them to

Quote:

first of all you've never said that or at least not 'many times'....

Yes, I have

Quote:

this is wrong because if we simply had a wage cap, we could help other people.

By eliminating the free market

Quote:

but instead you allow the bullies to continue their destructive ways. you can't just say that you would help if you had the chance, you do have the chance....

I do?

Quote:

but you are not using it. when you hear of child abuse you are required to report it to police. there are children starving right now who need you to bring up the issue to the people who can make a difference (like the police).

Wait, did you really just compare not forcing people to give their money away to ignoring child abuse?

Really?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Why would I want it to change?

do you not care about starving people or the environmental problems we have right now?

I'm not going to ******** over one person for another. I am a staunch supporter of property rights, and those who follow socialist agendas aren't worth listening to. We're working on the environmental s**t, even the paranoid delusionist stuff. But I'm realist enough to know there's no magic button to fix it.

except when i propose a wage cap that's not ******** anyone over whatsoever.

"property rights" no you are not. you are a supporter for your idea of what is right but that isn't the only way. don't start acting like your way is the very definition of "rights"....that's wrong.

Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.

how is putting a wage cap on personal income at ~10million ******** someone over?

Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

low iq 111

Riviera de la Mancha

low iq 111

Riviera de la Mancha

low iq 111

Riviera de la Mancha

Since when did I mention materialism? I am merely pointing to what all humans do- we take joy in owning things, be they small trinkets, photos, cars, toys, comic books, you name it. I am sure you have heard the term 'sentimental value'. I fail to see why sentimental value is legitimate it seems to you when its in an old marble or a finger painting from a child and not when its in a yacht.

Giving away wealth? Are you back to arguing that no one ought to own any wealth at all? The more you type, the more it seems to me like that is your real position: no one ought to own any great sum of money at all.

Who are you to claim I am blatantly lying? I am quite sincere when I say that there is a piece of mind that comes from accomplishing a goal like owning something that is a sign of wealth or status. Home ownership is a common one most Americans attempt to reach, and find themselves very much at peace when there is no mortgage.

Hey, if you are going to resort to ad hominems, let me know now.

materialism is when you are preoccupied with material objects and not with intellectual or spiritual matters. if you think peace of mind is easily met by owning things, then that is materialism.

why is a yacht different than a photo? lol. maybe because of its ******** size and how much space it literally wastes and how it pollutes the water every time it runs? durrrr...

" no one ought to own any great sum of money at all"
yes.

" I am quite sincere when I say that there is a piece of mind that comes from accomplishing a goal like owning something that is a sign of wealth or status. "

well here is news for you: many psychological studies would find you wrong.

open a psychology book before you try and argue on the internet again, because you are being willfully ignorant.

And nothing about valuing a book or a toy makes it impossible to value intellectual/spiritual matters. Neither are exclusive.

I am speaking about the sentimental value, in that people can develop such attachments to objects in both things of value and things which are worthless.

Cite for me one study then, if there are indeed so many, which states that no peace or enjoyment comes from accomplishing a goal like ownership of some object one values as a sign of comfort or status.

you said "If nothing else 'peace of mind' is very easily met by the peace and comfort that comes from obtaining such signs of wealth. "

you were implying that peace of mind can be exclusively met by materialism there.

"I am speaking about the sentimental value,"

too much 'sentimental value' for an object = materialism. so what is your point?

i've already posted them itt but here they are again.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-15/health/31317905_1_consumer-materialism-experiments

+ if there were a wage cap then there would still be plenty of room for materialism and sentimental value for objects or whatever bullshit you've been spewing so why the ******** are you even arguing anyway? lmao

I was not implying that. There is nothing in the cited quote that uses any word close to exclusivity. I merely said peace of mind is easily met by the peace and comfort one gets from obtaining things of value, like a home they actually own. 'Easily met' does not amount to 'exclusively is met'.

Yes, 'too much'. You assumed, erroneously, that I was referring to 'too much'. I am not, and have given no cause to.

Finally, your source discusses 'activation of a consumer mindset.'. This is not, as I asked for a study which shows that, "no peace or enjoyment comes from accomplishing a goal like ownership of some object one values as a sign of comfort or status.".

>"I was not implying that."
well then my mistake. i'm glad you were not implying that. now we can move on.

>"Finally, your source ..."

how is my source not proving what i said? elaborate?

I can't elaborate much more past pointing out that a 'consumer mindset' is a distilled set of values and expressed needs and motivations in a particular lifestyle. I am speaking to something that is, well, simply not that. Its much more akin to obtaining goals one sets for your self, and saying that existential goals like peace and comfort can be represented in obtaining physical objects. It is not to say, I mentioned, that one be obsessed with these objects, but that objects can take on positive meanings to people that bring good things without some notion of excess.

This is a simple truth that, in my opinion, property should recognize. We ought to allow people to purchase mansions or yachts if they desire, and not work from some communist notion of complete and forced collective pooling of resources.