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.
Originally posted by Seitse 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.
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 AThousandYoung 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 AThousandYoung 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?
I'm with Bosse here: would you feel such moral obligation?
Originally posted by FMF I'd pay whatever taxes the democratic mechanism determined was my obligation. And I wouldn't bellyache about it.
That would be ideal.
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.
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung 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 AThousandYoung I'd spend money to help the situation. Hire who was hireable; donate to organizations that provide necessities to the destitute; etc.
How much tax would you be willing to pay without feeling unjustly treated or under er... statist duress?