Mandatory donation from the rich

[eschemat]

So, the motion that I'm trying to propose is if you have money you were to spend on a luxury, you must instead use it to help someone who is immediately suffering.

 

[Ocean]

it shouldn't be donations, it should be taxes.

 

[Theftz22]

Umm, it's called the progressive tax rate.

 

[1048576]

Argument for: the wealth pie is uneven, which makes people sad. A more even wealth pie would increase happiness.

Argument against: the wealth pie is big, which makes people happy. A smaller wealth pie would decrease happiness.

Whether the tax rate we have is optimal? *shrug, that's a boring, technical conversation.

 

[DanteFox]

So, the motion that I'm trying to propose is that those who are the rich, the top 10% of society or so, should be mandated to donate to the poor.

I'll let someone defend their side of the motion first because I don't want to have an underrepresented side.

never heard of taxes, eh?

 

[Ocean]

that's a boring, technical conversation.

it's not a boring conversation to me.

but that's most likely because I hate the idea of supply-side economics with a burning passion.

 

[ballin4life]

it's not a boring conversation to me.

but that's most likely because I hate the idea of supply-side economics with a burning passion.

Why?

What do you mean in particular by "supply-side"?

 

[eschemat]

I'll change the whole debate. The new motion to discuss is if you have money you were to spend on a luxury, you must instead use it to help someone who is immediately suffering.

This is just a values debate so more about the concept rather than anything else.

 

[ballin4life]

But money you spend on luxury items DOES help people.

See, if you stop all the rich people from buying yachts, then all the yacht companies go out of business. Rich people buying yachts helps the suppliers of yachts.


Also, if you're really so passionate about this, why do you have a computer? Shouldn't you sell that and donate the money to some poor people? I'd consider a computer a luxury.

 

[eschemat]

it helps the yacht companies but not the starving children on the street

and lol it's not necessarily because i'm passionate about this, it's just that debating random topics is good for my debating skills. i got this topic from the finals of the HWS/IDEA tournament.

 

[_Keno_]

it helps the yacht companies but not the starving children on the street

It helps the employees of the yacht companies to feed their families.

 

[Ocean]

Why?

What do you mean in particular by "supply-side"?

because it has never been shown to work yet people still support it. it works in theory, but then again so does communism.

I'm speaking particularly about the tax-breaks for the wealthy, and the idea of benefits trickling down.

But money you spend on luxury items DOES help people.

indeed it does, but that doesn't mean it's the best place to put the money. why not spend it on infrastructure, where not only are you providing jobs, but also improving the country?

See, if you stop all the rich people from buying yachts, then all the yacht companies go out of business. Rich people buying yachts helps the suppliers of yachts.

not having tax breaks doesn't prevent the rich from being able to support these businesses. my family is in the 200k/yr. tax bracket yet we can afford what is often considered a yacht, so why can't these __illionares afford to cut back a little?

Also, if you're really so passionate about this, why do you have a computer? Shouldn't you sell that and donate the money to some poor people? I'd consider a computer a luxury.

that's pretty extreme. a lot of people need computers for daily life or work, or it greatly benefits them. a yacht doesn't do the same. one is definitely more important than the other.

 

[ballin4life]

because it has never been shown to work yet people still support it. it works in theory, but then again so does communism.

I'm speaking particularly about the tax-breaks for the wealthy, and the idea of benefits trickling down.

Oh ... what do you mean by it has never been shown to work? What has been shown to work? When was it tried?

See, I need to know where you are coming from when you make statements like this. Because the entire economy runs off people's accumulated capital. And rich people tend to have a lot of accumulated capital (duh), which they funnel towards businesses.

indeed it does, but that doesn't mean it's the best place to put the money. why not spend it on infrastructure, where not only are you providing jobs, but also improving the country?

What defines the "best" place to put money? I would answer "whatever satisfies demand". Rich people have demand for yachts, and businesses can supply yachts.

not having tax breaks doesn't prevent the rich from being able to support these businesses. my family is in the 200k/yr. tax bracket yet we can afford what is often considered a yacht, so why can't these __illionares afford to cut back a little?

It definitely has an effect ... if you raise taxes people WILL buy fewer yachts.

that's pretty extreme. a lot of people need computers for daily life or work, or it greatly benefits them. a yacht doesn't do the same. one is definitely more important than the other.

According to YOUR opinion. What if I think my yacht is worth much more than my computer?

Plus you're just drawing an arbitrary line, as I am. You draw it at yachts; I'm drawing it at computers. Your logic applies equally to both, yet you want to keep your stuff and make other people give up theirs.

 

[Ocean]

Oh ... what do you mean by it has never been shown to work? What has been shown to work? When was it tried?

it didn't work during the reagan years, and it didn't work the bush years.
honestly, I don't know what works yet. I'm still working on that part. I'm lenient to more distributed wealth though.

See, I need to know where you are coming from when you make statements like this. Because the entire economy runs off people's accumulated capital. And rich people tend to have a lot of accumulated capital (duh), which they funnel towards businesses.

I'm not arguing it doesn't. I'm arguing that they funnel it to the worst places to funnel it to.

What defines the "best" place to put money? I would answer "whatever satisfies demand". Rich people have demand for yachts, and businesses can supply yachts.

things that benefit more than just the business, and don't mal-distribute wealth. I wouldn't say that "whatever satisfies demand" is best for the economy, because if you have an economy completely based on what is demanded only, you're going to end up with businesses only aimed to make a buck and not benefit.
I really don't know how to explain this, so I apologize if this doesn't make any sense.

It definitely has an effect ... if you raise taxes people WILL buy fewer yachts.

not enough that the yacht companies won't survive. they might have to cut back some, but it's not as if all their employees will starve to death.

According to YOUR opinion. What if I think my yacht is worth much more than my computer?

then I would say that that's silly. in my personal experience, my family would not suffer if we lost our 40ft+ boat, but if we lost our computers then there is a large chance that we would be homeless by the end of the year.

Plus you're just drawing an arbitrary line, as I am. You draw it at yachts; I'm drawing it at computers. Your logic applies equally to both, yet you want to keep your stuff and make other people give up theirs.

the logic doesn't apply to both, because the values of both are different. the line you're implying the "needs" of the ridiculously rich is just as important (if not more) than the needs of the average income family. I don't see why anyone thinks that the rich are struggling as much as those who are just barely scraping by and are living check to check.

 

[Dre89]

Most of us spend on luxuries when we could donate that money to charity.

Saying that the rich are more obliged because they have more money is just setting an arbitrary distinction.

 

[ballin4life]

it didn't work during the reagan years, and it didn't work the bush years.
honestly, I don't know what works yet. I'm still working on that part. I'm lenient to more distributed wealth though.

Hmm, I thought the Reagan tax cuts "worked" (however you define that) ... but I haven't really done an in depth study.

The Bush tax cuts were small potatoes anyway. Tell me a reduction to 10% income for everyone wouldn't stimulate the economy.

I'm not arguing it doesn't. I'm arguing that they funnel it to the worst places to funnel it to.

How do you define worst? I'd definitely argue the opposite. Without capital, all the companies that satisfy our needs would not be able to survive.

things that benefit more than just the business, and don't mal-distribute wealth. I wouldn't say that "whatever satisfies demand" is best for the economy, because if you have an economy completely based on what is demanded only, you're going to end up with businesses only aimed to make a buck and not benefit.
I really don't know how to explain this, so I apologize if this doesn't make any sense.

But making profit IS providing benefit. When I buy goods from you, I only do that because I am going to be better off. Sure, you are much better off as well since you made profit. But that's the beauty of the market: BOTH people are better off.

not enough that the yacht companies won't survive. they might have to cut back some, but it's not as if all their employees will starve to death.

Well, it's all in numbers. A significant tax increase may indeed lead to the closing of yacht companies. An increase by .0001% probably won't.

then I would say that that's silly. in my personal experience, my family would not suffer if we lost our 40ft+ boat, but if we lost our computers then there is a large chance that we would be homeless by the end of the year.

You wouldn't suffer if you lost your boat? Wanna send it to me then (you said you wouldn't suffer if you lost it)?

Why would you be homeless if you lost your computers ... unless yall all work from home or something?

Regardless, EVEN IF you rely on computers, I'm sure you could sell your TV, your fridge, etc and donate that to the poor. Heck, why not the house, since you can probably find a smaller/cheaper apartment to live in.

the logic doesn't apply to both, because the values of both are different. the line you're implying the "needs" of the ridiculously rich is just as important (if not more) than the needs of the average income family. I don't see why anyone thinks that the rich are struggling as much as those who are just barely scraping by and are living check to check.

I am saying that anyone posting on the internet has way, way more than what they "need". You could be out going door to door raising money for the homeless, but instead you are posting here, because you like doing that a lot more.

Also it's important to note that the majority of rich people worked really hard to get to where they are. In doing so, they created a lot of value for their employers and thus the economy as a whole.

Most of us spend on luxuries when we could donate that money to charity.

Saying that the rich are more obliged because they have more money is just setting an arbitrary distinction.

Yup.

 

[Ocean]

Hmm, I thought the Reagan tax cuts "worked" (however you define that) ... but I haven't really done an in depth study.

halfway through reagan's years in office, unemployment had gone up to almost 11%.
the budget deficit jumped from $70~$80 million to over $200 million by 1984.
he lower taxes for the wealthy, while raising taxes for the middle class, through a creeping tax bracket (this may be the right term, I can't remember if it is or not). very few people were better off from reaganomics, and the ones who were, were already doing well. he did improve the overall morale of the country though, which actually did help the economy.

The Bush tax cuts were small potatoes anyway. Tell me a reduction to 10% income for everyone wouldn't stimulate the economy.

I'm confused by this. do you mean "10% income tax"? because to a reduction to everyones income wouldn't help the economy.

How do you define worst? I'd definitely argue the opposite. Without capital, all the companies that satisfy our needs would not be able to survive.

it's true that companies need capital to survive, but yachts are making plenty of profit, and could stand to cut some of theirs to distribute the wealth in sections of the economy that need it more currently.

But making profit IS providing benefit. When I buy goods from you, I only do that because I am going to be better off. Sure, you are much better off as well since you made profit. But that's the beauty of the market: BOTH people are better off.

it provides benefit to two people: the business and the consumer. the business, in this case, is the wealthy yacht company, and the consumer is the wealthy _illionare. I don't care much for these two people to be better off, honestly; they already are really well off. there's a lot of people out there who benefit a lot more from being better off than these two.

Well, it's all in numbers. A significant tax increase may indeed lead to the closing of yacht companies. An increase by .0001% probably won't.

the rich don't like to not cut back on their spending. even if a significant tax increase happened, they would still be buying yachts, because they still could afford to. there would be some who would not be able to afford to, but there's a lot fewer people in the lower end of high tax brackets than there are in the higher.
the only yacht companies who would go out of business are the ones unwilling to negotiate on prices.

You wouldn't suffer if you lost your boat? Wanna send it to me then (you said you wouldn't suffer if you lost it)?

we wouldn't suffer economically, but we would suffer in a entertainment sense. we could technically do without it, but we would definitely prefer not to.

Why would you be homeless if you lost your computers ... unless yall all work from home or something?

my mother does, and my dad relies on his computers for work, so both our sources of income rely on computers.

Regardless, EVEN IF you rely on computers, I'm sure you could sell your TV, your fridge, etc and donate that to the poor. Heck, why not the house, since you can probably find a smaller/cheaper apartment to live in.

this is a good point, and I can't argue against that.

I am saying that anyone posting on the internet has way, way more than what they "need". You could be out going door to door raising money for the homeless, but instead you are posting here, because you like doing that a lot more.

indeed, I'm the typical "selfish" person.

Also it's important to note that the majority of rich people worked really hard to get to where they are. In doing so, they created a lot of value for their employers and thus the economy as a whole.

this is true. also note though, that a lot of them were already born into wealth. it's much easier to get to a high place when your family was already up there. I'm not trying to discredit them though, they deserve respect for making it to the top of the food chain.

 

[ballin4life]

halfway through reagan's years in office, unemployment had gone up to almost 11%.
the budget deficit jumped from $70~$80 million to over $200 million by 1984.
he lower taxes for the wealthy, while raising taxes for the middle class, through a creeping tax bracket (this may be the right term, I can't remember if it is or not). very few people were better off from reaganomics, and the ones who were, were already doing well. he did improve the overall morale of the country though, which actually did help the economy.

I don't think you can draw a causation here. The Fed's interest rates jumped up to 20% to combat stagflation at this time, which likely had a much bigger effect on the economy.

I'm confused by this. do you mean "10% income tax"? because to a reduction to everyones income wouldn't help the economy.

Yes, flat 10% tax rate is what I meant.

it's true that companies need capital to survive, but yachts are making plenty of profit, and could stand to cut some of theirs to distribute the wealth in sections of the economy that need it more currently.

How do you define "need"?

it provides benefit to two people: the business and the consumer. the business, in this case, is the wealthy yacht company, and the consumer is the wealthy _illionare. I don't care much for these two people to be better off, honestly; they already are really well off. there's a lot of people out there who benefit a lot more from being better off than these two.

Part of my point I suppose is that there are always people who would "benefit more" (in the very very loose sense in which you seem to be using that phrase). You can apply the same logic to any purchase.

the rich don't like to not cut back on their spending. even if a significant tax increase happened, they would still be buying yachts, because they still could afford to. there would be some who would not be able to afford to, but there's a lot fewer people in the lower end of high tax brackets than there are in the higher.
the only yacht companies who would go out of business are the ones unwilling to negotiate on prices.

If a significant tax increase happened, the people that could always afford to buy yachts would all leave the country.

But my point was basically just that taxes do have an effect at the margin, no matter what.

we wouldn't suffer economically, but we would suffer in a entertainment sense. we could technically do without it, but we would definitely prefer not to.

Suffering in an entertainment sense IS suffering economically. The point of the economy is to increase your "utility", of which entertainment is definitely a component.

this is true. also note though, that a lot of them were already born into wealth. it's much easier to get to a high place when your family was already up there. I'm not trying to discredit them though, they deserve respect for making it to the top of the food chain.

Even if you're a trust fund kid, still your parents/grandparents/etc likely had to have made a bunch of money.

 

[Ocean]

I don't think you can draw a causation here. The Fed's interest rates jumped up to 20% to combat stagflation at this time, which likely had a much bigger effect on the economy.

the fed deals with loans to banks though, not on a personal level, like with taxes.
I do agree though, that that does have a bigger effect.

Yes, flat 10% tax rate is what I meant.

I don't know if the bush administration had a true flat tax rate. iirc, he did have a tiny bit lower rates for higher income tax brackets. but yes, I would agree that a flat 10% tax rate would stimulate the economy. it would encourage spending in all sectors of the economy, not just the upper levels, which is ultimately best. the only issue is it's difficult with the government's spending habits.

How do you define "need"?

something you can't live without in today's society, or in your given situation.
but are we talking about the needs of a business, or needs of a person?

Part of my point I suppose is that there are always people who would "benefit more" (in the very very loose sense in which you seem to be using that phrase). You can apply the same logic to any purchase.

I would agree, and you and I are mainly drawing the line at different places of what should be sacrificed for others to benefit more.
I am using that in a loose sense; it's hard to tighten it up without looking at specific examples.

If a significant tax increase happened, the people that could always afford to buy yachts would all leave the country.

what gives you this idea? I think a lot of the people who could afford yachts have too many ties to this country to really leave.

But my point was basically just that taxes do have an effect at the margin, no matter what.

and I would agree that they do, we are simply disagreeing on the extent of the effect.

Suffering in an entertainment sense IS suffering economically. The point of the economy is to increase your "utility", of which entertainment is definitely a component.

even if this is true (which I would agree it is), that doesn't mean suffering in a entertainment sense holds the same value as suffering in a business sense, which is where I would place the loss of computers from my earlier example.

Even if you're a trust fund kid, still your parents/grandparents/etc likely had to have made a bunch of money.

of course, which helps. a lot. it's really difficult to compare the difficulty of certain people doing certain things because of variables like this.


this is all theory, really. I doubt that significant tax increases would ever happen in modern america. and it would have to be gradual; we couldn't just suddenly increase income taxes by a large percentage, as the effect would be too dramatic for a sudden shift.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't know if the bush administration had a true flat tax rate. iirc, he did have a tiny bit lower rates for higher income tax brackets. but yes, I would agree that a flat 10% tax rate would stimulate the economy. it would encourage spending in all sectors of the economy, not just the upper levels, which is ultimately best. the only issue is it's difficult with the government's spending habits.

Bush taxes definitely weren't flat lol. I was saying that the Bush tax cuts were a difference of just a few percent.

something you can't live without in today's society, or in your given situation.
but are we talking about the needs of a business, or needs of a person?

Ok, so food and water. The vast majority of people in developed countries have those things. It's the people in developing countries that really "need" help.

what gives you this idea? I think a lot of the people who could afford yachts have too many ties to this country to really leave.

Put a 100% tax on the rich and it will definitely happen. The rest is just details.

 

[Ocean]

Bush taxes definitely weren't flat lol. I was saying that the Bush tax cuts were a difference of just a few percent.

oh, okay, that makes more sense. yeah, it wasn't much of a difference.

Ok, so food and water. The vast majority of people in developed countries have those things. It's the people in developing countries that really "need" help.

not necessarily. you can't render everything down to an absolute minimal sense. in a modern society, we "need" a lot more than just food and water. not in the sense that we would die without these needs (although we might), but in a sense that without them we wouldn't be able to produce what we need to "survive". in addition to food and water, we also need shelter, and we need work; some other needs that are not quite as required as these are a need for legal tender, a need for entertainment, a need for communication, etc. the main difference (or issue, if you wish) between these and the "basic needs" such as food and water is the line between need and want for these is a lot blurrier.
you and I are putting this line at different locations. I'm saying that a yacht is an excessive want; you're saying it's a need (or at least that's what I believe you're saying). I think that they should sacrifice these excessive wants to distribute the wealth more evenly across the board.

Put a 100% tax on the rich and it will definitely happen. The rest is just details.

I'm not proposing a 100% tax on the rich. that would be insane.

 

[El Nino]

Most of us spend on luxuries when we could donate that money to charity.

Saying that the rich are more obliged because they have more money is just setting an arbitrary distinction.

Just to clarify, I think the idea behind it is not to punish people based on what they make but to maximize the revenue devoted to improving quality of life on a societal scale in the hopes of reducing some of the problems associated with poverty, which themselves are costly and a drain on resources. Also, people in the middle or lower class ranges would be more sensitive to even small reductions in income than the wealthy, and they are more likely to be at risk of sinking into the poor or working-poor classes themselves.

 

[Theftz22]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

 

[eschemat]

To be honest, we have to acknowledge the fact that the people at the bottom of the pyramid need the most help. The unemployed, the impoverished, the college student who can't afford their education infinitely find more utility in those 200,000 dollars than the man who buys yachts and has a constant supply of money coming in.

 

[ballin4life]

What does rich guy do with his money?

He either buys yachts (sends it to other people) or invests it (sends it to other people).

 

[eschemat]

OK, so do those people who have been invested in and the yacht companies, does their use of that money have more utility than the man who's barely surviving?

 

[ballin4life]

Well investment is the source of economic growth...

 

[Ocean]

I don't think he's saying that investment doesn't lead to economic growth, but that it would be quicker and more effective to just give the funds straight to those in need.

 

[ballin4life]

Except that that would certainly hurt economic growth ...

I agree it would make those particular people better off, but it would make all future generations worse off.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The idea of mandatory donation could never work. First off, what would you define as a luxury? Yachts? Video games? Computers? Secondly, it would take away all motivation to make more than (just pulling a random figure) 200,000 or so a year, because that would afford all the luxuries you were allowed to have.

Also, I'd like to ask, what would you do if a group of people broke into your house, taking your TV's, cars, furniture, etc, everything but the bare necessities, and on the way out informed you that they were going to give all of it to the poor, and said they were doing the same thing to EVERYONE. How would you react?

Anyway, regarding tax cuts for the wealthy not working, do you really have a large enough sample size to show that? Perhaps the economy worsened during the Reagan and Bush years. But that's merely a correlation, not proof of a cause. By the same brilliant logic, since most people are on beds when they die, beds kill people. I personally think that government meddling is the cause behind the swings in the economy, with the inflation of the dollar causing the boom/bust cycle. But that's another topic.

 

[Ocean]

The idea of mandatory donation could never work. First off, what would you define as a luxury? Yachts? Video games? Computers? Secondly, it would take away all motivation to make more than (just pulling a random figure) 200,000 or so a year, because that would afford all the luxuries you were allowed to have.

Also, I'd like to ask, what would you do if a group of people broke into your house, taking your TV's, cars, furniture, etc, everything but the bare necessities, and on the way out informed you that they were going to give all of it to the poor, and said they were doing the same thing to EVERYONE. How would you react?

stop talking in absolutes; nobody is saying we should take EVERYTHING. we aren't communists here.

Anyway, regarding tax cuts for the wealthy not working, do you really have a large enough sample size to show that? Perhaps the economy worsened during the Reagan and Bush years. But that's merely a correlation, not proof of a cause. By the same brilliant logic, since most people are on beds when they die, beds kill people.

if you can't go by information given, then what can you go by?

I personally think that government meddling is the cause behind the swings in the economy, with the inflation of the dollar causing the boom/bust cycle. But that's another topic.

can you back up this thought? oh, but you aren't allowed to use information or examples from reality given, because that is strictly correlation.
also: 1) swings in the economy are going to happen regardless of government meddling, and 2) inflation is natural, is not the only variable that effects the business cycle, and has both positive and negative effects on the economy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The idea of mandatory donation could never work. First off, what would you define as a luxury? Yachts? Video games? Computers? Secondly, it would take away all motivation to make more than (just pulling a random figure) 200,000 or so a year, because that would afford all the luxuries you were allowed to have.

Also, I'd like to ask, what would you do if a group of people broke into your house, taking your TV's, cars, furniture, etc, everything but the bare necessities, and on the way out informed you that they were going to give all of it to the poor, and said they were doing the same thing to EVERYONE. How would you react?

Anyway, regarding tax cuts for the wealthy not working, do you really have a large enough sample size to show that? Perhaps the economy worsened during the Reagan and Bush years. But that's merely a correlation, not proof of a cause. By the same brilliant logic, since most people are on beds when they die, beds kill people. I personally think that government meddling is the cause behind the swings in the economy, with the inflation of the dollar causing the boom/bust cycle. But that's another topic.

Well, the whole idea has to do with enabling them to do more spending, thus stimulating the economy more than things like a safety net, good schools, or any other redistribution of wealth could. This has shown to just not happen. The super rich take their tax cut and for the most part, you know what happens with it? They put it in overseas accounts, they invest it in the stock market... The rich don't get rich through frivolous spending. Basically the very idea upon which tax cuts were grounded doesn't work.

And also, yeah, I get the whole "taxes = theft" thing. But you know what? Sometimes absolutist morals have to take a back seat to real-world pragmatism. Who would pay for the roads? Who would pay for schools? Do you really want to go back to the days where only a few people could afford schools, and where there were no highways? Yeah, me neither.

 

[ballin4life]

stop talking in absolutes; nobody is saying we should take EVERYTHING. we aren't communists here.

If your plan is justified then so is his.

if you can't go by information given, then what can you go by?

Correlation plus logic (and a much bigger sample size, as he said). His point is valid though. Causation may go in the opposite direction too, i.e. a weak economic outlook leads to politicians giving tax cuts.

can you back up this thought? oh, but you aren't allowed to use information or examples from reality given, because that is strictly correlation.
also: 1) swings in the economy are going to happen regardless of government meddling, and 2) inflation is natural, is not the only variable that effects the business cycle, and has both positive and negative effects on the economy.

Please provide some support for 1.

As for 2, inflation is NOT natural, it is the product of continuous increase of the money supply. Deflation is actually natural, since higher productivity and increases in technology make goods cheaper (see computers, for example).

Well, the whole idea has to do with enabling them to do more spending, thus stimulating the economy more than things like a safety net, good schools, or any other redistribution of wealth could. This has shown to just not happen. The super rich take their tax cut and for the most part, you know what happens with it? They put it in overseas accounts, they invest it in the stock market... The rich don't get rich through frivolous spending. Basically the very idea upon which tax cuts were grounded doesn't work.

This is incorrect. The reason tax cuts are good is that they lead to more investment and less government spending.

And also, yeah, I get the whole "taxes = theft" thing. But you know what? Sometimes absolutist morals have to take a back seat to real-world pragmatism. Who would pay for the roads? Who would pay for schools? Do you really want to go back to the days where only a few people could afford schools, and where there were no highways? Yeah, me neither.

LOL @ who would pay for schools. The government monopoly on schools is horribly inefficient and also leads to situations of the exact type you despise: people using the schools to push an agenda. Schools could easily function in a free market.

Roads seem a bit more difficult, but privatized roads DO exist. It's a bit annoying with tolls and what all, but nowadays they have technology that collects tolls automatically without forcing you to stop. Or there could be an enforcement system: anyone can go on the road but if you get caught and you don't pay for them you get sued for tons of money. Anyway the point is privatized roads would work.

Anyway, I don't see why "absolutist morals have to take a back seat to real-world pragmatism". Would you kill someone if it were pragmatic to do so?

 

[eschemat]

OK, so basically I'll refute the points given out by Nicholas before giving a little more depth in my arguments.

OK, so firstly, you look at what is a luxury. We think that a luxury is something that isn't commonplace in North American societies; we think that automotive industries are necessary because we need cars, we think computers are used for work, basically anything associated with some kind of North American necessity would be kept.

And then you assert the fact that no one wants to gain more money because of this. Well, the funny thing is that the money will have to be redistributed somewhere, so basically, someone will be receiving this money. Monetary gain is really something that denotes a situation by the way, if you're making in the 7 figures, you're obviously a CEO or something of the kind.

Then, you make this assertion that it's unfair for people to break in and take your stuff etc. and we think firstly that we wouldn't take everything, but secondly, the assertion that you make has this underlying assumption that all of a sudden you're yacht is more important than someone's life. Let's talk specifically about the economic downturn of 2008. Because of that, as a direct result, some of the rich but mostly the middle class lost a crapload of money. Where was that money given to? It was distributed to mainly the wealthy business owners who provide necessary services, and the irony is, people end up not being able to afford those necessary services. If you're to talk about what's fair, do you think it's fair that because of situations outside of their control, sometimes even situations made by the people who bankrupt, people should die?

So, what I'll do for you lastly is expand on my point of utility. So, what John Stuart Mill says is that utilitarianism, and the concept of utility is determined by the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Firstly, having a yacht isn't as important as buying food for yourself. Secondly, that yacht money could go to hundreds of people to help them. I mean, if you were to fall into a bad situation from something completely out of your control, I think you would say it's fairly outrageous that the rich who sometimes cause the problem keep the money.

TL;DR to actually achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we need some amount of equality.

 

[ballin4life]

OK, so firstly, you look at what is a luxury. We think that a luxury is something that isn't commonplace in North American societies; we think that automotive industries are necessary because we need cars, we think computers are used for work, basically anything associated with some kind of North American necessity would be kept.

But why draw the line at North America? To people in Africa, having a car is a luxury. Having a computer is a luxury.

And then you assert the fact that no one wants to gain more money because of this. Well, the funny thing is that the money will have to be redistributed somewhere, so basically, someone will be receiving this money. Monetary gain is really something that denotes a situation by the way, if you're making in the 7 figures, you're obviously a CEO or something of the kind.

1) The total of all the goods will decrease when you reduce the incentive to produce (take people's salaries away from them)

2) CEOs work ridiculously hard and provide tons of value to the economy. That's why they make a lot of money. (not counting CEOs of companies that are in cahoots with the government though )

Then, you make this assertion that it's unfair for people to break in and take your stuff etc. and we think firstly that we wouldn't take everything, but secondly, the assertion that you make has this underlying assumption that all of a sudden you're yacht is more important than someone's life. Let's talk specifically about the economic downturn of 2008. Because of that, as a direct result, some of the rich but mostly the middle class lost a crapload of money. Where was that money given to? It was distributed to mainly the wealthy business owners who provide necessary services, and the irony is, people end up not being able to afford those necessary services. If you're to talk about what's fair, do you think it's fair that because of situations outside of their control, sometimes even situations made by the people who bankrupt, people should die?

The "money" lost during the economic downturn of 2008 didn't go to anyone in particular. It simply disappeared. It wasn't redistributed.

To be more clear: the fact that your stocks went down in value or whatever does not mean that money is going to someone. You still have the same amount of stock. It's just that you can't convert it into as much money.


Anyway, to address the meat of your argument: How many people are really going to die if we don't steal all this money from the rich?

And you say that it's ok to steal from someone if it's going to help someone else, but this pretty much implies that all theft is ok, because the thief always benefits.

So, what I'll do for you lastly is expand on my point of utility. So, what John Stuart Mill says is that utilitarianism, and the concept of utility is determined by the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Firstly, having a yacht isn't as important as buying food for yourself. Secondly, that yacht money could go to hundreds of people to help them. I mean, if you were to fall into a bad situation from something completely out of your control, I think you would say it's fairly outrageous that the rich who sometimes cause the problem keep the money.

"Greatest good for greatest number" is contradictory. Do you give 1,000,000 utils to 1 person, or 10 utils to 100 people?

How do the rich "cause the problem"?

 

[eschemat]

But why draw the line at North America? To people in Africa, having a car is a luxury. Having a computer is a luxury.



1) The total of all the goods will decrease when you reduce the incentive to produce (take people's salaries away from them)

2) CEOs work ridiculously hard and provide tons of value to the economy. That's why they make a lot of money. (not counting CEOs of companies that are in cahoots with the government though )



The "money" lost during the economic downturn of 2008 didn't go to anyone in particular. It simply disappeared. It wasn't redistributed.

To be more clear: the fact that your stocks went down in value or whatever does not mean that money is going to someone. You still have the same amount of stock. It's just that you can't convert it into as much money.


Anyway, to address the meat of your argument: How many people are really going to die if we don't steal all this money from the rich?

And you say that it's ok to steal from someone if it's going to help someone else, but this pretty much implies that all theft is ok, because the thief always benefits.



"Greatest good for greatest number" is contradictory. Do you give 1,000,000 utils to 1 person, or 10 utils to 100 people?

How do the rich "cause the problem"?

We're talking about a North American style of policy right here. This would never occur in Africa, firstly.

OK, so basically you argue that work would then be reduced and people wouldn't work as hard. Unfortunately, they would get fired, so there is still an incentive to work. Ultimately, when all of the people in the society have met a minimum standard of living, then society would be better off.

Secondly, we agree that CEOs work very hard to provide for some economic stability. We also see that CEOs such as Bill Gates have redistributed their money to the poor and helping up and coming businesses to succeed. We think that there's a moral imperative that comes with being rich to give some of that money away and we don't think that imperative is being met.

Next, to your argument that the money will disappear suddenly, I think this link will provide a good explanation: http://economics.about.com/cs/finance/a/money_lost.htm

That money does end up go somewhere, and the person that it goes to can be the company, or it can be another person, but the fact is when this is accumulated to an individual person or company they become rich.

OK, so moving on, we don't think that everyone who will be receiving this money will be literally dying. What we do think though, is that everyone who receives this money needs the help of it. Think of the single mother who has to work two jobs for her son who she never sees. Think of the family on the street who has no standard of living, who's children have no chances of receiving education and will ultimately be a proponent of this vicious cycle. We don't think it's correct for the fundamental right of these human beings to be taken away.

And then you make the analogy of theft. We don't think this is a theft, we think that it's taking away someone's yacht to make someone's life better. We think that theft is basically taking away something illegally without the consent of a person, and usually it's selfish. In any case, we think that the legal way of redistributing wealth is much better than having theft occur anyways. There's no doubt in my mind when I say that the people who we will be redistributing money to will have to resort to theft anyways to try and get out of the vicious cycle, and for the poorest people in society, to stay alive so this legal means of redistribution is a much better alternative to true theft anyways.


Lastly, we don't really think that your argument about the contradiction of utils really works because in this case, that 200,000 dollars for a yacht will be redistributed in a way that helps the most amount of people reach a certain minimum standard of living; that's where we think the line should be drawn because when we give an excess amount of money to someone, they'll spend it on luxuries and the whole argument loops so the only logical way to do it is to set a minimum standard for how much money is given and then move onto the next person.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@BPC
Just wanted to pop in and say, if I do end up having kids in the future, I'd rather homeschool them myself (or at least pay for a good private school) then let them go to public school. I'd also like to note that people pay for college all the time.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@BPC
Just wanted to pop in and say, if I do end up having kids in the future, I'd rather homeschool them myself

God forbid.

I'd also like to note that people pay for college all the time.

Not in smart places. Like, germany. I would pay around 2500 euros tuition total for a top-notch college education. But the issue with colleges is in fact a perfect illustration of what's wrong with privatized education–only the rich can afford it. You have to be super-wealthy or so intelligent that you get an amazing scholarship. That, or you somehow got a college fund, or you place yourself into a fair amount of debt... The kind that you would get into when buying a house.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

CEOs work ridiculously hard and provide tons of value to the economy. That's why they make a lot of money. (not counting CEOs of companies that are in cahoots with the government though )

One comment, two words:

Tobacco Industry.

 

[Ocean]

One comment, two words:

Tobacco Industry.

what does that say about anything?
he said value to the economy, not to society.