Welcome to Gaia! ::

low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.


like i said in another post, "really?"

what you're asking for is like asking someone to prove that it's wrong to be a child abuser... it's not exactly proven by science or anything but it will make a society better if the rich give their stuff too other people or other life forms. 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. why, again, you ask? because that is the right thing to do. and i am 'pro-life'.

What you are talking about is a general duty to others. I am asking what exactly about being rich creates, by itself, a duty to others. The OP makes it clear that there is something by virtue of being wealthy that makes rich people beholden to others to perform all the tasks, or some combination thereof, that the OP mentions.

What I believe is that we all, rich or poor, have a duty to others, and part of fulfilling that duty is paying taxes, in proportion to your income, to provide services society deems important. In my opinion, there is nothing about being wealthy that makes you immune to this responsibility generally, or somehow means you alone get to decide how your money is spent for tax purposes for no other reason than you are wealthy.
Michael Noire
Riviera de la Mancha
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.

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.

Next, and this is probably the biggest contention- if you think it is a 'ethical fallacy' to believe that the greatest good might be achieved by empowering a body created expressly to do so, then I would think you need to articulate why it is any less 'ethically fallacious' to argue that the wealthy have some natural inclination to finance anything you noted, or why the wealthy have a separate set of obligations by sheer virtue of their money when it comes to providing for communal benefits.

After all, the points you allege about a rich person not being able to decide where his money goes is the same of the middle class and poor who pay taxes.


The location the tax dollars of a poor or middle class person goes is almost irrelevant, because they do not pay a sufficient amount of taxes to enact change. For example, even the wealthiest of the middle class cannot afford to build a hospital, space program, cancer research facility, university, or even an elementary school. They cannot make more than a minor contribution to the economy, to a library, or to a public stadium, park, or international conflict. The Rich are not constrained by this level of powerlessness. They can make lasting changes, such as paving hundreds or thousands of miles of highways, building Universities and leaving Endowments to keep them operational, or funding research into private space exploration. The vast majority of scientists, astronomers, and mathematicians during the early years were wealthy "natural philosophers". Those that were not were funded by those that were.

Ethical boundaries exist in different cultures for the wealthy, however, barring nihilism, the core ethic of the wealthy is to generate the currency of status. Status cannot be earned by wealth alone, but how wealth is spent. Admiration of financial and political rivals is the real treasure in the storehouse of the aristocrat. Hundreds of thousands of history books will tell you precisely the same thing. The opinions of others is what really matters when you are rich, and one of the ways to improve the opinions of others is to succeed in your goals, and to rule by love/likableness/respect, rather than by fear. Citizens, slaves, and the lesser titled function more efficiently when operating out of admiration rather than out of fear. The Son of Khan discovered this all too late when the Chinese ship builders under his rule sabotaged his ships and they were dashed asunder by a typhoon.

Ignoring for the moment the ridiculous claim that tax income that comes from the poor and middle class accounts for the lion's share of taxes from both the federal and state level, nothing about what you think is chump change alters the ethical question I raised; what about wealth makes the rich immune from having their taxes go where society deems important? Irrelevant amount or not, there is nothing that that has to do with an ethical query.

You are also rather off base if you think even most wealthy people can afford to build a space station.

There is also no sort of assumption that cultures share about the wealthy financing any of the projects or endeavors you claim. All you did was simply continue to assume what you set out to prove- there is a duty because there has always been a duty. Simply tacking on more assumptions (like the true value of wealth is admiration from other wealthy people) doesn't absolve you of this need to prove the base you allege.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.


like i said in another post, "really?"

what you're asking for is like asking someone to prove that it's wrong to be a child abuser... it's not exactly proven by science or anything but it will make a society better if the rich give their stuff too other people or other life forms. 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. why, again, you ask? because that is the right thing to do. and i am 'pro-life'.

What you are talking about is a general duty to others. I am asking what exactly about being rich creates, by itself, a duty to others. The OP makes it clear that there is something by virtue of being wealthy that makes rich people beholden to others to perform all the tasks, or some combination thereof, that the OP mentions.

What I believe is that we all, rich or poor, have a duty to others, and part of fulfilling that duty is paying taxes, in proportion to your income, to provide services society deems important. In my opinion, there is nothing about being wealthy that makes you immune to this responsibility generally, or somehow means you alone get to decide how your money is spent for tax purposes for no other reason than you are wealthy.


i believe, yes, that being rich means you have a duty. if you have more than you need then you have a duty to share your wealth with others, imho. general peace of mind is a need though. so people do need a few toys and hobbies to tinker with. but after that they don't need anything for themselves. they should give it away. why? there are only so many atoms in the world. there are only so many atoms that support life. those atoms are wasted when someone is sitting on a giant mansion using up 3 rooms and frankly i find that wrong. the problem is that wastefulness is wrong. in my perfect world i would rather support all different kinds of life than someone's wastefulness.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.


i think we should try to give everyone in the world food and education before we do much else. i don't put american poor over world poor.


I'm for fixing my house before I worry about my neighbors problems. And those that don't like us? ******** em.


people should starve because they don't like us? that's just plain cruel. i really don't think people who hate american are starving though. that's more of a second world country thing, i think. people who are starving don't care they just want some ******** food. people who are starving probably hate everything and everyone or are too starving to care.


So? Welcome to the real world. A good many people have no interest in wasting what they have on people that don't like them and actually hate them. If they're our friends/allies, then help them all we can. But otherwise? Not our problem.


wow....really? we are discussing ideals not what is the modern world.
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.


like i said in another post, "really?"

what you're asking for is like asking someone to prove that it's wrong to be a child abuser... it's not exactly proven by science or anything but it will make a society better if the rich give their stuff too other people or other life forms. 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. why, again, you ask? because that is the right thing to do. and i am 'pro-life'.

What you are talking about is a general duty to others. I am asking what exactly about being rich creates, by itself, a duty to others. The OP makes it clear that there is something by virtue of being wealthy that makes rich people beholden to others to perform all the tasks, or some combination thereof, that the OP mentions.

What I believe is that we all, rich or poor, have a duty to others, and part of fulfilling that duty is paying taxes, in proportion to your income, to provide services society deems important. In my opinion, there is nothing about being wealthy that makes you immune to this responsibility generally, or somehow means you alone get to decide how your money is spent for tax purposes for no other reason than you are wealthy.


i believe, yes, that being rich means you have a duty. if you have more than you need then you have a duty to share your wealth with others, imho. general peace of mind is a need though. so people do need a few toys and hobbies to tinker with. but after that they don't need anything for themselves. they should give it away. why? there are only so many atoms in the world. there are only so many atoms that support life. those atoms are wasted when someone is sitting on a giant mansion using up 3 rooms and frankly i find that wrong. the problem is that wastefulness is wrong. in my perfect world i would rather support all different kinds of life than someone's wastefulness.

You don't seem to articulate why there is a duty for the wealthy. You seem to only take an issue with waste. So, provided a wealthy person is using all of their wealth, then there would seem to be no waste.
My Dog Mr. Kitty's avatar

4,150 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Member 100
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

Why?
Why should they be obligated to do anything?
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha
low iq 111
Riviera de la Mancha

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.


like i said in another post, "really?"

what you're asking for is like asking someone to prove that it's wrong to be a child abuser... it's not exactly proven by science or anything but it will make a society better if the rich give their stuff too other people or other life forms. 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. why, again, you ask? because that is the right thing to do. and i am 'pro-life'.

What you are talking about is a general duty to others. I am asking what exactly about being rich creates, by itself, a duty to others. The OP makes it clear that there is something by virtue of being wealthy that makes rich people beholden to others to perform all the tasks, or some combination thereof, that the OP mentions.

What I believe is that we all, rich or poor, have a duty to others, and part of fulfilling that duty is paying taxes, in proportion to your income, to provide services society deems important. In my opinion, there is nothing about being wealthy that makes you immune to this responsibility generally, or somehow means you alone get to decide how your money is spent for tax purposes for no other reason than you are wealthy.


i believe, yes, that being rich means you have a duty. if you have more than you need then you have a duty to share your wealth with others, imho. general peace of mind is a need though. so people do need a few toys and hobbies to tinker with. but after that they don't need anything for themselves. they should give it away. why? there are only so many atoms in the world. there are only so many atoms that support life. those atoms are wasted when someone is sitting on a giant mansion using up 3 rooms and frankly i find that wrong. the problem is that wastefulness is wrong. in my perfect world i would rather support all different kinds of life than someone's wastefulness.

You don't seem to articulate why there is a duty for the wealthy. You seem to only take an issue with waste. So, provided a wealthy person is using all of their wealth, then there would seem to be no waste.


yes and a person does not use a mansion or a private yacht, etc very much, if at all. so then that person should give it away to people who could use it. how did i not articulate my point again?
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

My Dog Mr. Kitty
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

Why?
Why should they be obligated to do anything?


i didn't say that. you said that everyone should pay equal amounts. i was correcting you in that it actually makes more sense for people who have more to pay more..... but your head seems to be up your a** all the time so i doubt you would understand that concept...
My Dog Mr. Kitty's avatar

4,150 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Member 100
low iq 111
My Dog Mr. Kitty
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

Why?
Why should they be obligated to do anything?


i didn't say that. you said that everyone should pay equal amounts. i was correcting you in that it actually makes more sense for people who have more to pay more..... but your head seems to be up your a** all the time so i doubt you would understand that concept...

Clearly the OP isn't about taxes, so my response wasn't either

I agree, the rich should pay more taxes, but at an equal percentage as everyone

But we're not talking about taxes
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Yeah, I don't think you have a sense of scale over the issue.

You know, the power grid, roads, bridges, school which 20% of the nation is currently enrolled in, public schools, scholarships, student loans, NASA, the EPA, the FDA, the fact that at most the U.S. kill 30 civilians a year etc. compared to the million who were dying a year, compared to the fact it's dropped down to 10,000 but it's still 10,000, land mines, and suicide bombings, that people live in constant fear of going to school or church for the constant threat of being attacked by terrorists, the land mines set outside places soldiers aren't even are, the suicide attacks against civilians on a constant basis, the constant shelling with mortars and the like etc. compared to the few accidents is nothing.


Compared to all the good the U.S. does; just look at schools, for god's sake billions of dollars, hundreds of billions, for over 50 million people a year, a practically everyone went through school, probs 90% through public education, which despite the silly idea that it's the 50th in the world based on GRADES (which, we grade harsher, and in a way that means we have higher standards etc.) it's way better; 800 billion to social security, 800 billion to medicare, the fact that when every hurricane, earthquake and natural disaster that pararescue people are there, American aircraft carriers and other things, to help out, when no-one else in the world even does, not even their own countries.

People with power always have a responsibility to do the right thing with it.


And practically everyone has a responsibility to educate themselves. When easily 99% of the things we do are great and you don't want to pay anything for the perception of the 1% you think we do wrong, it's insane. Go ahead and try plz, but then again I wonder, what if you tried, it might be better if you didn't.
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.

It's Philosophy, not a Myth. Understand the difference.
This is why I agree in Principle with Tax deduction for those who supply funds for the Public Good, proportional to the amount of funds they give.
My Dog Mr. Kitty
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

Why?
Why should they be obligated to do anything?

The fundamental question comes down to the Public Good.

Historically it's shown that when the Wealth and Education of the "lower classes" increases significantly over time society as a whole prospers, largely because collective employment has more value and the collective mind is far better equipped with dealing with arising societal problem.

The problem comes with trying to marry this reality with the fundamental believe that Freedom is important. A purely free society creates problems because when it no longer values societal advancement the poor have no means with which to advance themselves as a group and the power of society languishes in a downward cycle. That is why it's important for influential and beloved leaders to drive societal involvement, to drive the desire for the citizenry to make their country a better place.

While the Rich should have no LEGAL obligation to make their country better, they should have every moral and ethical obligation to better their country however they can. Being they primary possessors of wealth (more so in a downward cycle which drains money from the unemployed poor) they're involvement is especially important.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

My Dog Mr. Kitty
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

Why?
Why should they be obligated to do anything?


Cause it's the right thing to do.

When you have responsibility over other people's lives you have obligations; if you want to just, idk, give away your money, responsibility gone. xp


Not to mention people inadvertently benefit from their environment.

When that's improved and they profit they pretty much are obligated to continue to pay into it, that's just how the system works, it's how it keeps running etc.
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.


i think we should try to give everyone in the world food and education before we do much else. i don't put american poor over world poor.


I'm for fixing my house before I worry about my neighbors problems. And those that don't like us? ******** em.


people should starve because they don't like us? that's just plain cruel. i really don't think people who hate american are starving though. that's more of a second world country thing, i think. people who are starving don't care they just want some ******** food. people who are starving probably hate everything and everyone or are too starving to care.


So? Welcome to the real world. A good many people have no interest in wasting what they have on people that don't like them and actually hate them. If they're our friends/allies, then help them all we can. But otherwise? Not our problem.


wow....really? we are discussing ideals not what is the modern world.


Well, the ideals are biased and discriminatory. Moral obligations are constructs of those that want THEIR agenda carried out. I do like how they exempt themselves from having to be picked up on the tab of it, passing it off to 'the rich', so they can get that warm fuzzy feeling, but, as usual, with someone else money.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games