Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, seeing as charity alone would never make a nation secure and healthy, and never have more than a cosmetic impact on injustice and/or widespread grinding poverty or other downsides of corporatism, you probably need to get your head around (a) whether you (the fantastically wealth person mentioned in the OP) are willing to pay taxes, and, if you are (b) how much tax you are willing to pay. Then you can assess the extent of the obligation you feel to pay this 'debt' that you either "owe" or don't "owe" to "the poor".
I don't know. I'm not sure I'd be ok with 100% taxes.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI like the thread title question better. It makes it clear what you're getting at and avoids the tangents of discussing about money circulating. It also gets ready of the "fabulously", which is only sweeping interesting questions under the carpet.
Do fabulously wealthy people owe the poverty stricken populace jobs so that the money can circulate?
It's not an easy question, because it frames the question of redistribution as static and in terms of one group being in debt from another without seemingly any reason for that.
To answer it I would say that the wealthy do not owe the poor directly, but they may be said to owe the society that allowed them to generate such wealth. So taxation may be the form for the government, acting in the name of society, collecting that debt. Then the government may do what society has appointed it to do, which may include redistribution for the purpose of allowing all its citizens a decent way of life.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm with the others who say "owe" is a poor choice of words.
Do fabulously wealthy people owe the poverty stricken populace jobs so that the money can circulate?
I will say that you'll be hard pressed to find any country with a decent quality of life that doesn't tax the rich more than the poor.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWould you make any distinction between how their money was made? Surely money made from exploiting or conning people is more "owed" than money made from hard work and a life of personal sacrifice.
Do fabulously wealthy people owe the poverty stricken populace jobs so that the money can circulate?
Originally posted by FMFThose are some good ideas, but how much the rich should give the poor is a different topic.
Well, seeing as charity alone would never make a nation secure and healthy, and never have more than a cosmetic impact on injustice and/or widespread grinding poverty or other downsides of corporatism, you probably need to get your head around (a) whether you (the fantastically wealth person mentioned in the OP) are willing to pay taxes, and, if you are (b) how ...[text shortened]... igation you feel to pay this 'debt' that you either "owe" or don't "owe" to "the poor".
Originally posted by twiceaknightYes, I would, if it could be proven; but that's also a different topic.
Would you make any distinction between how their money was made? Surely money made from exploiting or conning people is more "owed" than money made from hard work and a life of personal sacrifice.
Originally posted by PalynkaThanks for the excellent answer!
I like the thread title question better. It makes it clear what you're getting at and avoids the tangents of discussing about money circulating. It also gets ready of the "fabulously", which is only sweeping interesting questions under the carpet.
It's not an easy question, because it frames the question of redistribution as static and in terms of one gro ...[text shortened]... ay include redistribution for the purpose of allowing all its citizens a decent way of life.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou seem to think the rich have done something wrong.
Those are some good ideas, but how much the rich should give the poor is a different topic.
The reason I say that is, you seem to be willing to take something away from rich people for no specific reason. That suggests that rich people have more restricted rights -- specifically property rights -- than other people. Normally, we don't take away individuals' rights except as punishment for some criminal act.
So exactly what criminal act or acts do you think rich people are guilty of?
Originally posted by twiceaknightDo you mean like the hard work and personal sacrifice of this fine gent?
Would you make any distinction between how their money was made? Surely money made from exploiting or conning people is more "owed" than money made from hard work and a life of personal sacrifice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines
Originally posted by spruce112358What if taxing the rich more is actually in the interests of the rich (as is usually the case, especially in the U.S.)?
You seem to think the rich have done something wrong.
The reason I say that is, you seem to be willing to take something away from rich people for no specific reason. That suggests that rich people have more restricted rights -- specifically property rights -- than other people. Normally, we don't take away individuals' rights except as punishment fo ...[text shortened]... criminal act.
So exactly what criminal act or acts do you think rich people are guilty of?
Originally posted by spruce112358Let's see, from the viewpoint of the rich...
I don't know. What do you think?
Cons of higher taxes:
- Less material goods and services you don't really need in the first place.
Pros of higher taxes:
- Lower crime.
- Higher GDP, providing more investment opportunities.
- Better business climate.
- Better social stability.
- Higher labour productivity, providing a more skilled workforce so businesses are more profitable.
It's quite a tricky one.