2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI question your use of the word "owe" here. You need to clear it up if this discussion is going to work.
Do fabulously wealthy people owe the poverty stricken populace jobs so that the money can circulate?
I can OWE [something] ... BECAUSE of X
Right?
With X being something like 'a service provided' or because of 'a moral imperative' perhaps.
But...
I OWE [something] ... SO THAT Y...
It doesn't work, does it? What is "Y"?.
I owe $10 so that the money is in the pocket of the lender. No.
The wealthy owe the poor money so that there is economic activity. No.
The word "owe" is the wrong selection and obtrusively so.
What is it you're trying to ask exactly?
I'm with FMF here, ATY, you gotta be clear.
If you mean that the wealth of a handful is built upon the misery of millions, then
yes, it is true. That is why the more people have the more they should be taxed,
that way wealth is redistributed and a balanced society is achieved; of course,
without depriving those who are more hardworking or creative from a bit more.
2 edits
Originally posted by SeitseI mean, if someone is extremely wealthy, does he have a moral obligation as the steward of resources to keep it circulating by hiring people?
I'm with FMF here, ATY, you gotta be clear.
If you mean that the wealth of a handful is built upon the misery of millions, then
yes, it is true. That is why the more people have the more they should be taxed,
that way wealth is redistributed and a balanced society is achieved; of course,
without depriving those who are more hardworking or creative from a bit more.
Or is it perfectly reasonable for a wealthy person to ignore massive poverty?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm with Bosse here: would you feel such moral obligation?
I mean, if someone is extremely wealthy, does he have a moral obligation as the steward of resources to keep it circulating by hiring people?
Or is it perfectly reasonable for a wealthy person to ignore massive poverty?
Originally posted by FMFThat would be ideal.
I'd pay whatever taxes the democratic mechanism determined was my obligation. And I wouldn't bellyache about it.
However, the more money you have the easier it gets to pay an army of
bad ass tax lawyers and accountants to set up nice onshore and offshore
mechanisms to legally pay less and less and less taxes.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow much tax would you be willing to pay without feeling unjustly treated or under er... statist duress?
I'd spend money to help the situation. Hire who was hireable; donate to organizations that provide necessities to the destitute; etc.