A Moral Question©

[Sub]

Is it morally wrong of the government to tax the rich highly?

[JammyJim]

yes because they earn it for the most part.

[Muslim]

Originally posted by JammyJim
yes because they earn it for the most part.

earn my ass
there are people here in brasil that work their asses off the whole freaking day to earn what I do, in a part time job.
tell me about earning.
I am in this easy and profitable job becouse i was born on a reasonably rich part of society, and I am no hipocrate like you to think that I earned this position, wich sounds like an old conservative bugger

[Dookie Velvet]

Originally posted by Muslim

there are people here in brasil that work their asses off the whole freaking day to earn what I do, in a part time job.
tell me about earning.

You're forgetting that it'll go a lot further in Brazil though, aren't you?

[NEWSBOT3]

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Sub
Is it morally wrong of the government to tax the rich highly?

you have to define just about every word in that sentence before we can go any farther.

Focus on 'tax highly' tho

scenario one "higher in terms of paying more money than others"
Complete fairness to some would be for government expenses to be divided per capita across the population. In US, this would mean every MWC would have to come up with around $8K. Now that might be difficult for some who are already in debt, and unable to get a job. As my dad says (he's a layer) "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip", and the government could execute those poor, or jail them, but it is not possible to get money from them (they got none).

So in order to actually cover expenses, the government will automatically have to take more money from some than others.

Scenario two: "higher in terms of rich paying a greater percentage of what they have"
This is a non-issue, because I sincerely doubt it will ever even come up. The rich will never allow the government to tax them at as high a rate (of wealth) as the poor get taxed. They are too influential, and the poor are too stupid.

e.g., bill gates probably payed $10-20M in taxes last year, on his $50B of property that comes to...oh, ~0%. Whereas the bum on the corner who only has to his name the $3 in his coffee can probably payed $600 in taxes in the past year (on booze and cigs etc.) which comes to 'round 20,000% of his total wealth.

[Tobe]

i think so, if i was in power id opt for a regressive tax system, poor people generally use merit and public goods more frequently because they cant afford private service

why should richer people who go to private hospitals pay for commoners to go and have their lungs removed cos they smoked until they got cancer

a regressive tax system would teach poor kids to get educated or fail, punish the parents so the children learn

why should we punish the rich for being more intelligent ? (general case there are obviously exceptions to this rule some poor people are cleverer than rich people)

the government tries to promote higher education yet wants to introduce a graduate tax and highten fees , whats that about? there should be an un graduate tax

and dont give me all this **** about poor children not being able to afford to go to uni because there are plenty of loans/government support available to them

:e_chick: :e_chick: :e_chick:

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tobe
i think so, if i was in power id opt for a regressive tax system, poor people generally use merit and public goods more frequently because they cant afford private service

Most of the money spent by government is to defend the right of the rich to retain their wealth (military, police, court system, most foreign policy, etc.).

Now while it is true that many of the poor would like to be rich someday, and therefore approve of the government working to protect this right, it is quite silly to say that the poor profit more from the right to be rich than the rich profit from the right to be rich.

[JonnyBGood]

Of course not. Richer people have more to lose if society collapses so from a rational point of view they should pay more taxes to safeguard their position.



Although I deny stupid moral issues like this entirely on the grounds that if you don't tax rich people more society will find it much tougher to function.

[Tobe]

Originally posted by acropolis
Most of the money spent by government is to defend the right of the rich to retain their wealth (military, police, court system, most foreign policy, etc.).

Now while it is true that many of the poor would like to be rich someday, and therefore approve of the government working to protect this right, it is quite silly to say that the poor profit more from the right to be rich than the rich profit from the right to be rich.

sorry what

higher proportion of poor people go to prison, cost the court system more

rich people pay for lawyers , poor get free provided ones

military and police protect the rites of all people

NHS spending is predominantly on poor people

[Muslim]

any and all rich people had to step over someone at some given point
they are evel bastards that need to be shot in the fingers repeatedly

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Sub
Is it morally wrong of the government to tax the rich highly?

Most money in the capitalist system is either generated from use or ownership of land (directly or indirectly) or through the use/sale of intellectual property.

Intellectual property is only respected because of state protection (i.e. ultimatley if I sell pirated Avril Lavigne CDs the police will come and arrest me).

Land ownership can't really be justified since the majority of people in this country have no (or little) say in what happens in their own nation. Also, land ownership is merely respected (ultimately) because of state intervention.

Think of the social-democratic functions of government to be a "patch" (software-style) for capitalism. I don't particularly support either the patch or the original system, but the theory is that the software would be too unstable to run raw.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Muslim
any and all rich people had to step over someone at some given point
they are evel bastards that need to be shot in the fingers repeatedly

You are a first class idiot.

I am comfortable in terms of my income and spending power, I earn in a week what most people on minimum wage earn in a month.

I worked damn hard, trained myself at personal expense, funded myself through University, I continue to fund my own training, I have just enroled on a Health and Safety Course, that will give me better prospects, at a personal cost of £3000.

People who are well off, as you put it, work hard to get what they have, no one GAVE me anything, I earned every last penny.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Judge
I earned every last penny.

A greater man than you and I once said that 'if i see further than others it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants'. In the same way that Isaac Newton did not do every little bit of work from the invention of the very first algae onwards neither did you (or I) do everything that resulted in us being where we are. I would view it from a wholly practical point of view and say that having an impoverished, undereducated majority or even minority benefits nobody. Therefore the government is justified in taking what they can to repair the situation.

[Muslim]

Originally posted by Judge
You are a first class idiot.

I am comfortable in terms of my income and spending power, I earn in a week what most people on minimum wage earn in a month.

I worked damn hard, trained myself at personal expense, funded myself through University, I continue to fund my own training, I have just enroled on a Health and Safety Course, that will give me better prospects, at a personal cost of £3000.

People who are well off, as you put it, work hard to get what they have, no one GAVE me anything, I earned every last penny.

You cant possibly believe that i was being serious
None of my posts wich ends up with a smiley or random generifications are meant to be taken seriously

and about your life i WONDER how you got the money to fund yourself. From you class A education? your white skin? your brit accent?
you have to take that into consideration
I am not saying that youre a low life oportunity taker, but just becouse you where a little poor and now youre a little richer it doesnt means that all of it was your endeavour












or it does?
read my first post
that contains ideas I actually believe in

[Matrim]

You know, I read in the paper that even though most Norwegians' wages have doubled over the last 20 years, they (the Norwegians) haven't gotten the slightest bit happier.

So money really doesn't matter all that much. Why not let the government tax it all away to the stars (and beyond!).



Matrim

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
A greater man than you and I once said that 'if i see further than others it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants'. In the same way that Isaac Newton did not do every little bit of work from the invention of the very first algae onwards neither did you (or I) do everything that resulted in us being where we are.

What has this got to do with anything?

[queball]

Originally posted by Muslim
earn my ass
there are people here in brasil that work their asses off the whole freaking day to earn what I do, in a part time job.
tell me about earning.
I am in this easy and profitable job becouse i was born on a reasonably rich part of society, and I am no hipocrate like you to think that I earned this position, wich sounds like an old conservative bugger

So your parents and ancestors earnt it, and you're annoyed because you don't know how to take full advantage of your privilges (I assume).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What has this got to do with anything?

Anyone who claims to have done everything themselves and solely on their own ability is in fact wrong. Social interactions are humanity and in spite of any ideas of summing up humanity through each and every single individual 'no man is an island'.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tobe
sorry what

higher proportion of poor people go to prison, cost the court system more

rich people pay for lawyers , poor get free provided ones

military and police protect the rites of all people

this is the worst logic ever

i guess assuming that those in prison want to be there (perhaps they are like hotels, and the customers are there for the bed and cable), maybe you have some thought that exists in the realm of logic.

But generally the assumption I've always held is that people are not in prison because they want to be, they are in prison because others want them to be there. And it seems to make more sense that the people who want the government to do something would pay when the government does it.

As to lawyers, the 'free lawyers for the poor' makes up 0% give or take from the annual budget, so it is a non-issue. If you want to question whether it should be done, that's a worthwhile question but seeing as it costs almost nothing it is kind of pointless to bring up in a thread about taxes.

And as to "protecting the rights of all people," if you'd like to contend that the right to be rich is just as valuable to the poor as it is to the rich I'm interested.

(we don't have an NHS over here, and I don't know how the English system works so I won't try to comment. However, here Medicaid and Medicare are paid for strictly by the poor anyway)


PS: and the "the poor should pay for the justice system because they commit all the crime" would be fixed into law easier by changing it to "blacks commit all the crime so they should be the ones that pay all the taxes." enforcement would be easier because while you can't always tell who's poor, you can always tell where the blacks are and you can go over and tax 'em

[queball]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Anyone who claims to have done everything themselves and solely on their own ability is in fact wrong. Social interactions are humanity and in spite of any ideas of summing up humanity through each and every single individual 'no man is an island'.

What has this got to do with anything?
Are you trying to equate earning with ability? Or what?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Anyone who claims to have done everything themselves and solely on their own ability is in fact wrong. Social interactions are humanity and in spite of any ideas of summing up humanity through each and every single individual 'no man is an island'.

How is building upon the achievments of other individuals who proceded you equatable to building upon those of 'society' in general (or around them)?

[Muslim]

Originally posted by queball
So your parents and ancestors earnt it, and you're annoyed because you don't know how to take full advantage of your privilges (I assume).

nope
I am saying that i did not do much to have a nice position

[Nodrog]

People who are good looking have a moral obligation to help ugly people find dates.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
How is building upon the achievments of other individuals who proceded you equatable to building upon those of 'society' in general (or around them)?

I wasn't serious for gods sake. Did you not notice me trying to fit in a cliche in each post? Sometimes I think the art of sarcasm has fallen to appallingly low levels on this forum.


:e_chick: Just noticed this heh






Oh and I'd still tax rich people until they realise that they don't have to be taxed. Anyways I'm out of here to spend my poker winnings. Don't wait up children! And Prodigy - 3 kilos is quite possibly the greatest track in history.

[Muslim]

Originally posted by Nodrog
People who are good looking have a moral obligation to help ugly people find dates.

I second that!
and people who are 17 and didnt have sex yet must have sex before any one younger is thinking about having sex

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
People who are good looking have a moral obligation to help ugly people find dates.

I'm sure the uglies would settle for not having to pay for the good-looking peoples' dates

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
I'm sure the uglies would settle for not having to pay for the good-looking peoples' dates

Because the poor subsidise the rich with their tax money.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Because the poor subsidise the rich with their tax money.

I can't honestly say if that's how it works in the UK as well.

I'm kinda curious about how your budget works tho

[Bunga]

They don't. But poor people pay a higher proportion of their wealth in taxes than rich people. And how many here can say that they are here because of their own actions? None. Its just luck that you were born in an at least moderatly rich country. You could just as well have been a woman in Iran.

Im from Sweden. I have done most of the things putting myself in my position myself, meaning that I didn't inherit any money to get here. But... being a Swede, I received free education and health services. Of course I took advantage of that, and because of that I am here, writing this. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have owned a computer. I know that I owe my priveliged position to two things: luck and hard work. With luck being the most important one.

[Sub]

i thought it made it OBVIOSU that the question wasnt a moral question at all
ttht was the hwole point!

god sake!

i was making a parody of theat rollorstaker thread

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Sub
i thought it made it OBVIOSU that the question wasnt a moral question at all
ttht was the hwole point!

But it is a moral question...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
But it is a moral question...

In the never-ending game of nod versus reality there can be only one winner.


































COMEDY. LOL!

[Sub]

Originally posted by acropolis
you have to define just about every word in that sentence before we can go any farther.

is

\Is\, v. i. [AS. is; akin to G. & Goth. ist, L. est, Gr. ?, Skr. asti. [root]9. Cf. Am, Entity, Essence, Absent.] The third person singular of the substantive verb be, in the indicative mood, present tense; as, he is; he is a man.

o- \I"so-\, Is- \Is-\ [Gr. 'i`sos equal.] A prefix or combining form, indicating identity, or equality; the same numerical value; as in isopod, isomorphous, isochromatic. Specif.: (a) (Chem.) Applied to certain compounds having the same composition but different properties; as in isocyanic. (b) (Organic Chem.) Applied to compounds of certain isomeric series in whose structure one carbon atom, at least, is connected with three other carbon atoms; -- contrasted with neo- and normal; as in isoparaffine; isopentane.


it

Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction: polished the table until it shone; couldn't find out who it was; opened the meeting by calling it to order.
Used as the subject of an impersonal verb: It is snowing.

Used as an anticipatory subject or object: Is it certain that they will win?
Used as an anticipatory subject to emphasize a term that is not itself a subject: It was on Friday that all the snow fell.
Used to refer to a general condition or state of affairs: She couldn't stand it.
Used to refer to a crucial situation or culmination: This is itthe rivals are finally face to face. That's it! I won't tolerate any more foolishness.
Informal. Used to refer to something that is the best, the most desirable, or without equal: He thinks he's it. That steak was really it!

n.
Games. A player, as in tag, who attempts to find or catch the other players.
An animal that has been neutered: The cat is an it.


ok i can't be bothered now u get thw point

[Sub]

Originally posted by Nodrog
But it is a moral question...

it's not morally wrong for a body to tax a person higher than another

i don't thnik
maybe ill think about tit in the morning
i dont see where morals come in to it, as badically everyone should earn the same, evern if they do 1000% times the the work that the next person odes. this is why communisn works

[Sub]

barring Weapons of Mass Destruction

[W]

What have laws and government ever to do with morality?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
What have laws and government ever to do with morality?

Just as much as anything else...

If someone believes an action to be "moral", they will believe that a law that forbids that action is "immoral". If someone believes that an action is "immoral", then they will believe that a government that takes action is acting "immorally". If killing is always immoral, then a law allowing capital punishment will be an immoral law, and a government that supports it will be acting immorally. If you believe that "people should be materialistically equal", then a law supporting wealth redistribution will seem moral to you.

Obviously if youre a moral nihilist then using the terms moral and immoral to apply to laws is just as nonsensical as applying them to the actions of individuals.

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Everything?

If someone believes an action to be "moral", they will believe that a law that forbids that action is "immoral". If someone believes that an action is "immoral", then they will believe that a government that takes action is acting "immorally". If killing is always immoral, then a law allowing capital punishment will be an immoral law, and a government that supports it will be acting immorally. If you believe that "people should be materialistically equal", then a law supporting wealth redistribution will seem moral to you.

This is a tautology; all you're saying is that morals are relevant to morals.

Obviously if youre a moral nihilist then using the terms moral and immoral to apply to laws is just as nonsensical as applying them to the actions of individuals.

Which is WAY off topic

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
This is a tautology; all you're saying is that morals are relevant to morals.

Not really, I was answering your point about how morality could apply to law. If a law acts in accordance to objective morality (lol), it will be moral. If not, it will immoral. If objective morality doesnt exist, then the entire debate is just as pragmatically pointless as any other ethical debate.

[queball]

W, are you saying that the government is an entity without morals, like the winter, while morals only apply to how we interact with the government through voting and campaigning, and to the wise father who gives his son a warm coat made from the hide of a bear?

[W]

Originally posted by queball
W, are you saying that the government is an entity without morals, like the winter, while morals only apply to how we interact with the government through voting and campaigning, and to the wise father who gives his son a warm coat made from the hide of a bear?

I'm saying that laws have no more to do with morality than riding a bicycle, or eating.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Muslim

and about your life i WONDER how you got the money to fund yourself. From you class A education? your white skin? your brit accent?
you have to take that into consideration

I withdraw my last comment, your not an idiot.

Your a Racist idiot.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
People who are good looking have a moral obligation to help ugly people find dates.

This is dumb. If I am going out with another person, one presumes they consented to this. Therefore it's a voluntary association.

Land doesn't consent to be owned. At the moment, society recognises your current "ownership" of this land (or resources contained on this land). As part of this deal, you have to pay a form of "rent" to everyone - through taxation.

You can stop paying this "rent", but you'll be evicted.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Judge
Your a Racist idiot.

So anyone who mentions someones race in a post is now a racist?

He was commenting on how a persons race (or accent) can confer upon them certain advantages in a given society. How does this make him racist?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

What's more, it's the fact that he was calling someone racist for commenting on the racist nature of society.

Hypocracy ahoy.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As part of this deal, you have to pay a form of "rent" to everyone - through taxation.

You can stop paying this "rent", but you'll be evicted.

This is generally the way I look at it.

I'd contend that the society could agree to a deal whereby you wouldn't pay any 'rent', and in that case not paying would be fine.

(e.g., churches etc.)

Immorality could show up if the society made a certain agreement with someone about his land use, and then went back on their side at some later point

(e.g., maybe kicking off the white farmers and taking all the food they had grown, when the implicit agreement is that if they grew a crop they would get a certain share of the benefit of the production)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
(e.g., maybe kicking off the white farmers and taking all the food they had grown, when the implicit agreement is that if they grew a crop they would get a certain share of the benefit of the production)

Well, as I've said elsewhere I'd prefer some kind of tenancy system where land-controlling rights are better outlined, and where grounds for revoking land tenancy would be explicitly stated.

With the white farmers in South Africa/Zimbabwae and "implicit" understandings, you start running into dodgy areas and it's a pretty complex debate. Basically though, legalities aside, being a land owner simply becomes increasingly expensive as the murder/squatting rate jumps.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So anyone who mentions someones race in a post is now a racist?

He was commenting on how a persons race (or accent) can confer upon them certain advantages in a given society. How does this make him racist?

No he was making the point, or trying to that being white or british gave me an advantage, which is suggesting that I only got on in life because of those factors.

The only people in Britain to gain advantage due to race, is Blacks and Asians, it is a fact if your black you get all the help you need from social funds etc. I witnessed this today at a Jobs Fair, there was a Stall on it that was exclusively there to help Black and Asian people find work.

Now if someone tried to have a stall at the trade fair saying it promoted help for white Job seekers, how long would it be before the people running it were branded racists?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Judge
it is a fact if your black you get all the help you need from social funds etc.

No, it's not a "fact". It's something you might believe, but if nothing else "all the help you need" is subjective to point of useless.

Anyway, if you're worried about white jobseekers, why not start an organisation to assist them? I don't see why you should care about being branded racist, or whatever else in that context.

Also, there are advantages (perhaps not formally recognised) to being white.

Besides, you need to look internationally. Being born "average" in the UK is a massive headstart to being born "average" in Bangladesh (for instance). I am in a far better position than most born at the same time in a shanty-town in Lahore, but it's not because of my obvious talents, genius, good-looks, etc. (Although I'm sure that played a part).