Originally posted by flexmoreYes, they provide a home for somebody. Who else would pay them rent but somebody who was making use the property? Anybody who is collecting rent payments is contributing to society.
if someone inherits a large property fortune, and they then live off a huge ammount of rent money that is given to them by the real estate agent who does all the work.
do you belive this person contributes to society?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesif some one regularly gains money week after week by thievery/scams/ deception, and this is the only way they know how to make such financial gain easily and safely then surely it is both an income and rational.
The first two are examples of neither income nor rational behavior.
it is not legal, and it is not nice.
just like they other examples - i believe.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleshang on there - how exactly did this little rich kid contribute? what did they do?
Yes, they provide a home for somebody. Who else would pay them rent but somebody who was making use the property? Anybody who is collecting rent payments is contributing to society.
did they build the buildings? maintain the buildings?
no.
they did nothing.
Originally posted by flexmoreIt's not income. If it were, the books wouldn't balance, for a community could have an unlimited income by repeatedly stealing each other's money if you define bounty from theft as an instance of income.
if some one regularly gains money week after week by thievery/scams/ deception, and this is the only way they know how to make such financial gain easily and safely then surely it is both an income and rational.
it is not legal, and it is not nice.
It's not rational either, although this is quite a bit more difficult to demonstrate ad hoc. The best way I know how to do it is using a game theory model, in which you assume both rational agents and theft as a potentially rational act, and then deduce that theft is never an optimal action, and thus irrational. Maybe telerion could step up to the plate on this one.
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreHe let somebody live in his home.
hang on there - how exactly did this little rich kid contribute?
Is is not a contribution because he inherited it? If so, then the same argument would apply to his tax payments -- they wouldn't actually be contributions either.
So, why should he be taxed? If he should be taxed in order to contribute, then his letting of his property is an equally valid contribution.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesno it is not his home ... he has never even visited these hypothetical buildings, he doesnt even care where they are.
He let somebody live in his home.
Is is not a contribution because he inherited it? If so, then the same argument would apply to his tax payments -- they wouldn't actually be contributions either.
So, why should he be taxed? If he should be taxed in order to contribute, then his letting of his property is an equally valid contribution.
he did nothing, but recieve payments.
and you are right 😉 even when he pays tax he does not contribute ... the tax paid does not come from him, it does not respond from any contribution from our little rich brat. it was never his to give.
shavixmir will agree with me on this - 😉
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt is one view of fairness. One could argue for a tax that rises on income, a flat tax with the same proportion of tax per dollar earned, and a poll tax of a flat amount of tax so everyone pays exactly the same dollar amount.
Of course it's not fair.
The only reason somebody is able to spend a higher proportion of their income on luxury is because they already have contributed proportionally more to society, for that's just what it means to have obtained a higher income. This notion of fairness says that it is fair to force those who already have contribute ...[text shortened]... continue to contribute proportionally more as a result of thier disproportionate contributions.
You can also give tax rebates for children or a hundred other things, allow a married couple to split income- or have no rebates at all.
You can charge property based taxes, tax cigarettes, alcohol and gambling, charge duty and sales taxes with exclusions .
All are fair in some sense and a country somewhere does it.
All taxation is a political decision.
A taxation policy that uses a higher taxation rate for the extremely rich helps slow down the widening gap between rich and poor..
Lots of these people have inherited families businesses, large amounts of property etc.. Of course some will have made it themselves through extremely hard work.
All are still going to live very comfortable lives so why not take a bit extra from those that can afford?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair anyway..
Besides, anyone with that much money will generally have a very good accountant and will be taking advantage of all the tax breaks going, offshore accounts, etc.
Also, its only the income over £100,000 that would be taxed at the higher rate.. Who really needs more than that? Its just greed.
Originally posted by WeadleyAnyone who can afford to hire someone for a job generally isn't poor, kinda a catch-22 situation there don'tya think?
How many of you people have ever been given a job or employed by a poor person? Thats right none.
Go ahead and tax your liberal selves into a 3rd world country!
I laugh at you.
So whats the answer, make the poor ever poorer and reward the rich with more cash?
Inequality of this sort can only last so long before there is unrest alongst the unwashed masses.. Let them eat cake indeed.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThievery isn't rational behavoiur??
The first two are examples of neither income nor rational behavior.
The latter two are valid examples of contributing to society.
So are the two recent edits.
Care to explain that one..
Lets say you are hungry and poor, why not rob to feed yourself.
Lets say you are strung out and need your next fix, why not rob to provide that.
Lets say you want that new ipod you saw on tv that all your mates have but your parents can't afford. Society might say you shouldn't rob it but it doesn't mean its not rational behaviour if you go and rob one.
Thieving to satisfying a need is rational, however false that need may be.