FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Should rich people give away their money?





PatTheGreat42
My friend and I had a discussion recently, and I was hoping to hear about other's opinions.

My friend feels that rich people, and even not so rich people, have a responsibility to give away their money to charitible causes. I, however, feel that rich people have earned their money and deserve it, and while it would be a nice thing for them to do, there is no reason they have to.

This, I feel, also holds true for those who inherited their money. If they didn't earn it, someone earned it, and wanted them to have it.

What do you think?
xorcist
I dont believe they should give away there money. They worked really hard to try and become rich. If they want to give it away or anything they have the choice for them to do what they want with there money. They should give it to a charity or people who really cant work hard because of things like they cant work, or help poor people out to get them started to make money but however its there money they should be able to do what they want with it they worked hard for it so now they can enjoy it.
blackomen12
I don't think they should because most of the time they worked to get their money. Thuogh some people (Paris Hilton...etc.) just inherit the money. But still they shouldn't give it away. Just think... would you give away money if you had a lot?[b:4522c2f21
Rolz
Hmm, this is an interesting topic. Well, this could be both yes and no.

Yes, because they have lots of money and they wouldn't go bankrupt if they gave a bit of cash to foundations and victims of catastrophes.

No, because I believe most of rich people worked hard to get their money, and no matter how much you have, you wouldn't want to give away something you earned with your two hands (or legs or whatever Razz).
S3nd K3ys
PatTheGreat42 wrote:


My friend feels that rich people, and even not so rich people, have a responsibility to give away their money to charitible causes.


I think your friend is an idiot. And a lieberal.

Take MY money and give it to someone else that didn't work for it?

:middle_finger:
gonzo
PatTheGreat42 wrote:
My friend feels that rich people, and even not so rich people, have a responsibility to give away their money


And when they give it away to the point they become poor they are then entitled to money from other people.

Wouldn't it be simpler for them just to keep the money they themsevles EARNED?
H@O
PatTheGreat42 wrote:
My friend and I had a discussion recently, and I was hoping to hear about other's opinions.

My friend feels that rich people, and even not so rich people, have a responsibility to give away their money to charitible causes. I, however, feel that rich people have earned their money and deserve it, and while it would be a nice thing for them to do, there is no reason they have to.

This, I feel, also holds true for those who inherited their money. If they didn't earn it, someone earned it, and wanted them to have it.

What do you think?


i think they should give away their money for helping poor men Embarassed
supersonic
Well it depends how the person got the money. If they won it in the lottery they should give some of it away. If they worked hard and erraned it then why should they give it away. It is like working hard to make a nice dinner and you ask a bunch of people to help and they say no then you really shouldn't have to feed them if they did't help. Do you get what I'm saying. It's all really based around how the money is erraned. Of couse it is ultimately up to the person who has the money.
myth-plan
I dont believe they should give away there money. They worked really hard to try and become rich. If they want to give it away or anything they have the choice for them to do what they want with there money. They should give it to a charity or people who really cant work hard because of things like they cant work, or help poor people out to get them started to make money but however its there money they should be able to do what they want with it they worked hard for it so now they can enjoy it.
gonzo
Is the 'friend' from the first post is a socialist?
Davidgr1200
Shall we put the question this way. How much harder can one person work than another? If one person works hard and earns, say, 100 000. Does someone who earns 10 000 000 work 100 times as hard? Or take the example of a managing director of a company who works so badly that he is given 50 million as "compensation" for losing his job. Has he really "earned" that money?
Personally I find it hard to see how someone could need 50 million dollars - you can only eat so much food. You can only ride in one car at a time, you can only live in one house at a time. I also find it hard to understand how someone can "earn" 50 million dollars (as opposed to being given it for being the "right person in the right place at the right time"). If they receive that sort of money then they are overpaid!
Still, once they do get the money it is theirs to do as they like with it. Some will have some sort of morals and donate some to charity, others are greedy and will keep it all for themselves. If you are rich it is easy to give away small sums of money, the hard thing is to gove away sufficient money so that you notice a difference! The person who gives away that much money is admirable in my book.
gonchiweb
in my opinion, they souldnt give away their money, as you said most, deserves it because they worked hard for it and that made the difference. but there are a LOT of rich (or middle)people that dont deserves it, because, they didnt work and they have it because, their parents, familiars, etc. earn it time ago. In that case, i keep thinking they not have the "RESPONSABILITY" of giving away the money, but they should think why they have it, and maybe theres a lot of people that wanna work, but dont have the opportunities, so they should give some money to those people.
see ya
gonzo
wow... just wow.


what does "deserve" mean?

S3nd K3ys
gonzo wrote:
wow... just wow.


what does "deserve" mean?



Deserve (v): Not have. Want. Desire. Not earned.
sonam
Quote:
My friend feels that rich people, and even not so rich people, have a responsibility to give away their money to charitable causes.


I thing, anyone haven’t rights to push rich people to give money for charitable. Some very rich people give big money in charitable organizations. Unfortunately, many times behind this donations is less tribute on their incoming at the end of year.

But, in some other cases people give big or small amounts of money for help other. I am living in one town where donations coming from everywhere. People just sending money or going in the bank and give money for help. Last ten year I can see this every day. I sow here some rich people what give donations bigger then hundred millions $!!! And I am sure they didn’t give this donation for less tribute. They don’t need rules or push, they just give what they want.

Sonam
hahame
look throught the repost ,i had not read anyone holp the oppose opoint .

so i want to holp my owe opoint now.i think the rich man should give some money out for the charity.because from this ,they can earn more more money later,and have a good reputation.
SharpeWolfe
While it would be incredibly nice for the richer people to give their money away, it would have to be to charities. They really shouldn't go giving money to individual people. That tends to create a sort of dependence and doesn't force them to try and make things better on their own. I think maybe they should be encouraged to give money to charities, this is a free nation so they can do with their money what they want to do.
windrei
PatTheGreat42 wrote:
My friend and I had a discussion recently, and I was hoping to hear about other's opinions.

My friend feels that rich people, and even not so rich people, have a responsibility to give away their money to charitible causes. I, however, feel that rich people have earned their money and deserve it, and while it would be a nice thing for them to do, there is no reason they have to.

This, I feel, also holds true for those who inherited their money. If they didn't earn it, someone earned it, and wanted them to have it.

What do you think?


my view is, if everyone is a plain paper when s/he was born to the earth. So, if one earns money him/herself and only by him/herself, those money is belonged to him/her. Then they should not be asked/required to give away their mney. It's his/her choice.

However, if one does not have the money in such away, like you said, just inherited from their parents, then those money should be donated back to the society. i hate people gain something without giving out. And it's not fair.
apl_cdr
well, it really depends on him/her. If she does not want to give away his/her money, then don't! If he/she feels charitable, then why not. It's his/her money anyway. He/she can use it any way he/she wants.
LuiS_J
well honestly is up to them if they want to give their money..
gonchiweb
[quote="S3nd K3ys"]
gonzo wrote:
wow... just wow.


what does "deserve" mean?



Deserve (v): Not have. Want. Desire. Not earned./quote]
???????
Deserve: be worthy or deserving; "You deserve a promotion after all the hard work you have done"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Adeserve
christoph
I kind of have the feeling that it depends on how this person got rich... Did he work hard all his life and did he save every penny of it... then it is his and he deserved it... Now if he won some lottery or something then I would recomend him giving some of it to a charity. Now lets turn the situation around a little more: what if he stole it and now he/she is rich?!? Of course this person should give it all away for a good cause... If he doesn't then he shall be doomed for life!!!
mustaq
some really good heart people reaaly donate the money but most not since there earn with there hard and smart work why should there do it
nfuriate
If they've earned the money rightfully then no since they spent a long time getting it. But if they earned it by cons or any other un-civil way then they should (but I highly doubt they would).
KimRubin
Capitalism as a social system solves one problem very well: How to create wealth.

It does not solve a long list of other problems. One of the ones unsolved is: How to distribute wealth.

Socialism is a system, like communism, that attempted to solve that second problem. The problem was, that they broke the first solution, AND, they only worked so-so on the second problem.

Having a large number of charitable choices is great step towards solving the second problem.

Suppose you had a great deal of money. Yes, YOU. Not $2 million, like you won the lottery. More like $200 million. You can't spend that yourself.

Everybody wants to make the world a better place. Everybody has some idea how to do that, including you.

So there you are with $200 million dollars. You are going to decide to spend it the way you want to make the world a better place according your YOUR vision.

Maybe you buy your way into politics. Maybe you provide AIDS drugs to Africa. Maybe you provide grants to math and science teachers. Maybe you give it Planned Parenthood or the Red Cross.

The point is, if you don't give away according to YOUR wishes, it sits around doing almost nothing. Eventually, the goverment will take it and it will go to social security, building roads, and waging war.

So in the end, rich people DO ending up giving away their money.

Damn good thing, too.
manhattan<3
I think rich people can do whatever they WANT with their money. They probably worked hard for it, and just happen to have better luck than some poor guy. Very Happy But if the money IS inherited, (Paris Hilton) then they should give away at least a BIT of their money to the poor, because at a point like this, you haven't earned the money, you just happen to have a rich family. so yeah...... Question
yule
You do not think these rich people money very many, I thought they
rich are they are very industrious, gains very diligently, but also
has some people makes not the improper money.
startsomething
I know if I were rich, I would buy lots of stuff, mostly material and superficial, maybe go to europe, then what I had left after bills I would:

50% Invest in Cash Deposits
10% Cash
40% Charity/Others

If I didn't give a fair amount I would probably save, or change my lifestyle to give at least once a month. But that is if I were rich. But I'm not. So I will just complain about how rich people are hoggin all the money. Stupid rich people.
tingkagol
Rich people should give their money to me.

...That way, maybe I could afford a domain. Razz
planet
Not being one of the folks in question its easy,,, YES (as in sharing their wealth).

Fortunately most rich people I know have a natural sence of sharing and do it.

The important part is for the rest of us to remember that we all should give to needy causes. In ways of monetary contributions (if we can) or help in whatever form we are able to.

It a very needy world out there and we have an obligation to help others.
budazz
of course they wont give it away...they become rich becoz they are not giving their money to anyone
homer09001
i believe there should be a tax for example if they have over 100,000 in teh bank 6% should be taxed and given to charity?
BigBoss
Should rich people be forced to give their money away? Certainly not. No one should ever be forced to part with the thing they have earned all by themselves.

Is it a good thing when rich people give some of their money away to charitable causes? Definitely. No question there but I think it should always be a voluntary thing rather than a mandatory one.
gertjang
When they earned it theirselves, they don't have to give their money away, but when they got it from family, I think they should
Ikichirou
Like most people, I think that they shouldn't have to give money away since the rich folk usually earns it all from hard work and time. They shouldn't have to give it away unless it was like asking for everyone to give away money and not just the rich people.
Grant_Weaver
First of all, some of the comments in this thread are not only inappropriate, but are just plain ignorant. Just because you're rich doesn't mean your greedy; it doesn't mean that you've horded money your whole life in some selfish manner to live an extravagant lifestyle. I personally know a family that is very wealthy, but they live a very humble lifestyle in a small home next to a small lake. A lot of people work very hard for the wealth they have, and being jealous of their success in life is not a valid reason to tarnish their character.

Now, back to the topic. Rich people ethically should donate a lot of their money, but they are in no way required to. But this maxim applies to everyone, despite their financial status.
bdoneck
Those of them that earned it by working hard and getting far in life should not have to, but the lazy asses that just inherit it from their parents or actors or sports players should have to. its not right that entertainers get paid more than people like doctors.
Grant_Weaver
So you think actors and athletes don't work hard?

And the belief that those who inheret money should give it away is just as asinine as the belief that rich people are greedy.
watersoul
I'm with you PatTheGreat42 it would be really lovely if everyone who is rich shared a good chunk of it towards charitable causes, but they shouldn't have to do it. When an individual chooses to pass some of their wealth to others it actually means something but to force someone? Don't the rich pay lots of taxes anyway, certainly they do where i live, and the state in turn looks after the more disadvantaged people.
I'm actually far from rich at the moment myself, snatching the odd day of work here and there where I can, but I absolutely don't begrudge the wealth of other people who happened to be lucky or hardworking enough to get it Smile
standready
watersoul wrote:
I'm with you PatTheGreat42 Don't the rich pay lots of taxes anyway, certainly they do where i live, and the state in turn looks after the more disadvantaged people.

Not here in the USA! the rich (percentage wise) pay less. If someone chooses to giveaway their money, that is nice.
pashmina
You should give out some if you have a lot of money, and you know that you won't be using them..
The rich should think about the poor people and should consider some donations or charity work
eday2010
The answer is no. People, rich or poor, have the right (or at least should), to decide what they want to do with their money. Many wealthy people do give to charities and things of that nature. The thing is they choose to do it; they aren't forced to. Nor should they ever be. It's their money, they earned it (in most cases), and it is theirs to do with as they please.

Anything else can probably be considered socialism. And socialism is just communism without the guns.
eday2010
The answer is no. People, rich or poor, have the right (or at least should), to decide what they want to do with their money. Many wealthy people do give to charities and things of that nature. The thing is they choose to do it; they aren't forced to. Nor should they ever be. It's their money, they earned it (in most cases), and it is theirs to do with as they please.

Anything else can probably be considered socialism. And socialism is just communism without the guns.
j_f_k
assuming they became rich by honest means (although if you were a wall streeter who got rich short selling whichever small bank that went broke this week this would be a rather debatable and grey area) then no. If its your money and you earned it you are entitled to spendit any way you see fit.

If this means buying a 300ft mega yacht and using it to sail past somewhere in Africa watching people starve while you feast on beluga caviar and champagne and giving them 2 fingers, then, yes, you are a selfish f**k however, you have every right to do this with money thats rightfully yours.

Money can buy mega yachts and good quality hooch but it can't buy respect, and when you do this everyone is going to know you are a f***er and anyone nice to you is only doing so becase they want something - in the end - not that much of a life if you think about it. This is why some people (eg Bill Gates) donate money they have made voluntarily.

If OTOH you acquired your money by nefarious means - then I think this would be an ideal punishment - seize all assets and give to help the poor and hopefully you are then poor yourself.
friuser
The rich already give away their money by the way of taxes. Sure they get taxed less but chances are better than pay more than the average joe. Still though.... Any society that allows its citizen to pay less than what they can honestly afford in order to keep the status quo is bound to cause public unrest which we have. So in short it's not about the rich not giving money away really. It's about people not having money to give away to others.
Afaceinthematrix
If a rich person wants to give away some of their money to charities then I commend them and think that it is a wonderful thing to do... But I do not believe that it should be a requirement.
Libby
Everyone who can should give away their money.

Money comes from exploiting people and the earth. It creates huge inequalities between people, causing misery and powerlessness.

I hope one day we won't have any money at all and we'll live in a gift economy or something like that.

Until then I give away as much as I can and try to use as little as possible.

My mom says she worries she'll come home one day and I'll have sold all our possessions and given the money to the poor (ala St. Francis). Laughing But I wouldn't go that far...
kirii
They should atleast give away some of their money..
although they deserve in using theri money,but they should donate some to the needs too..
yupeng
I think,as a member of our society,any has his/her responsibility to do this.
Rich is society's,not theirs.
Vladalf
I don't like people that say rich people should do that. It's their money and they can do whatever they want for it. Also in the world we live in, even if we are charitable noone will thank you for helping them.
-Vladalf
angietlsw
Whether or not you are rich, please visit my site, "Tiny Drops Make A Mighty Ocean" to see how you can help me from drowning in debt. http://www.freewebs.com/tlsw/
sondosia
No!

I'm not rich, but I hope to be someday. And if/when I am, I hope to give away a bit of my money to charitable causes because I WANT to, not because somebody says I have a "responsibility" to.

With the exception of WASPs with trust funds, rich people work hard for that money. They do. We all like to think that rich people have it sooooo easy, but no, they don't. Or at least, they definitely didn't while they were working hard to earn that money. If you become rich (as opposed to being born into a wealthy family), you have to be motivated, lucky, and extremely smart. You deserve that money. Deserve. Whichever way you choose to define it.

So, how about we stop telling other people what to do with the money they earned, and concern ourselves with what to do with our OWN money?
Tphilakone
I think the rich people should give their money to a poor people . Maybe they should give opportunity like a scholarship for a student
Hogwarts
Tphilakone wrote:
I think the rich people should give their money to a poor people . Maybe they should give opportunity like a scholarship for a student

.. why? Scholarships should go to people with potentially (which is what they do, minus the ones for ethnicity, gender or other stupid reasons that annoy me to the nth degee) which is why there are ways to academically gain scholarships Confused

I've spent the last few years with a shonky, run-down PC, a rickity desk and a wooden chair to go by on. Now I've spend weeks studying to get into a well-paying job, I have no responsibility to give that money away. If I see something worthwhile, I'll give some of that money away. However, I'm definitely not going to give it to random idiots from the dole queue too lazy to make it for themselves.
gugusm
Yeah, they should always give away some part of their money. God wanted us to share goods with each other Smile
Dean_The_Great
Rich people should use their money to improve the area around them. This falls under the heading "Think globally, act locally". If they were to use their wealth to make a better area around them, changing things like the unemployment rate by creating jobs, then it would make their area a better place... and if EVERY person with enough money to do it did it... we'd have a much better world around us.
tony
tingkagol wrote:
Rich people should give their money to me.

...That way, maybe I could afford a domain. Razz


haha; its too bad frih$ cant buy a domain Sad
Josso
Well, they earned that money - why has another person got any more right to it than they have to be honest. There's a reason some people are richer than others. However I do agree with you to a certain extent - I mean people with a vast amount of money such as Bill Gates are never going to be able to spend that much anyway and it would help to give it away to less fortunate people. Which he does I may point out.
achowles
It's up to them. But money is worthless if it's just sat there collecting dust. Given that the whole nature of the economy requires the circulation of money, they should be investing it somewhere. Even if it's ultimately just for their own benefit.
cenoga
esses riquinhos tem q dar o dinheiro pra mim
snowynight
It all depends. We should praise those who give away their fortune like Bill Gates and so on, but it's ok to keep the money to themselves. Giving away money is just one way to help, because we have other approaches to assist those in need. For example we can post in this forum to help those people withe various of problems.....
hamza1122
Well it all depends, i believe that all the celebrities who are rich should be the ones who donate money to charity because they earn multiple times the amount of money several people earn in a year for just making one movie. Paris hilton gets paid millions of dollars just to perform as a guest on a party! The people who earn money without working hard for it should definitely donate but the people who spend a lot of time and effort such as doctors should not have to but it would be good if they dotnated a little. Very Happy
nigam
yes, it all depends to the rich people if they wanted to donate some of their money or not.....Even middle class people will donate their money because for them, it is a very fullfilling moment and they were happy to share some of their blessings..
deanhills
When I was in the UK during the first part of December, I happened to listen to an interview with a wealthy business man. He said the only way a person can make money is to give it away all the time. If you do not work with the money, i.e. just collect it, you cannot REALLY get wealthy. Money is meant to be spent.

I thought that was quite a good point and perhaps he was correct. Investing is probably just another way of spending money, and investing in people who are poor, another kind of investment too. Perhaps one can go even further in dimension by saying that the more you give, not only of money, but in teaching others, or helping others to further where they are in any way, the richer you get in every respect.
mwsupra
I think people who are well enough to waste money on a 5 thousand dollar haircut or have 20 cars should definitely give something back. Not only because it helps the community but (hopefully) they would feel better for doing it. If I were rich I would just hand out money to bums however I would make sure to donate to some greater cause.
PatTheGreat42
I think it'd be sweet if rich people gave away their money, but I don't get the arguments that they have a responsibility to. I mean, it's their money. They can do with it what they want. Hopefully give it to good causes, but if not, that's their decision.
Insanity
I think they should do something to give back to the community because they made their money with the help of a lot of people -- consumers, clients, and the like. They should at least part with a little of the money back to the community.
andersonic
There is too much money in professional soccer. All they do is kick a ball about around, and get paid loads! This money is better of being given out to people, especially in times like this with a global recession about to happen..

I mean, paying like 20 million for one person, to play a game of football for 90 minutes or less, every week and the player earns 20-100,000 a week. Neutral
carlospro7
I don't think it's about whether rich people should or should not give their money away. I think to say if somebody should do something then there has to be a motive. If a rich person wants to help poor people, then they should give their money away. Otherwise, why should they, they may not care.

Personally, I don't think rich people have to give their money away, although I wish they did.
biljap
Those who earn money have right to use it as they wish. Everybody works for themselves and their family. It is a nice thing that somebody who has possibilities (it does not have to be somebody reach) to give and to help to those who really need it.
People should help each other, especially if we see that somebody has some critical problems, I’ve seen people starving to death but still proud enough to ask to help! Confused
It is sad that some people can’t have something so basic for life and anybody who can should help, it would be nice, it would make them feel nice. But it is nobody’s obligation, you can’t make them give away what they’ve been working for and it is not fair to make them feel bad because of that. That’s what I think...
tony
Politically, no. Taxes should be flat and charge everyone an equal portion of his/her earnings regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, Financial standing, etc.

Morally, yes. Of course, shouldn't we all use everything we have for the good of the world? But I wouldn't be quick to judge another man for not using his wealth as I am certainly guillty of poor usage of my finances also.
shkumbin
YES! Rich people should donate as much as they can, especially to needy children in Africa who day every day from lack of water and food... it's so sad, they have milions, what would cost them to give away a few hundred dollars???
keane
If they give away their money, they'll become poor. LOL... Kidding aside, I think if their rich enough, donating their money to charities or putting up a foundation that will help the poor would really be nice.
Hogwarts
From an economic standpoint, it would be much better if they spent the money instead of giving it away. Doing so would maintain their countries services and utilities through the taxation revenue generated, help other people keep their jobs producing and selling what they're buying, and also put an end to the current economic troubles -- which would benefit the majority of the world.
gandalfthegrey
oh ****** yes!!!

How much does one person need anyways!?!

I am inspired by the story of Zell Kravinsky. A multi-millionaire who gave up his fortune and even donated a kidney to a complete stranger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Kravinsky
kenny990
Well, it depends if they choose to give away their money. If they do, then go for it! A lot of people need money and support at this economic crisis right now. But for the most part, their money is their money. They have the right to keep whatever they own.
TurtleShell
yes, definitely. And I have just the bank account where they can put it.
Hogwarts
TurtleShell wrote:
yes, definitely. And I have just the bank account where they can put it.


Or you could go study more and make it yourself Rolling Eyes
TurtleShell
Hogwarts wrote:
TurtleShell wrote:
yes, definitely. And I have just the bank account where they can put it.


Or you could go study more and make it yourself Rolling Eyes


Ok! It will be hard to fit in, what with working a full time job, running a business, cleaning my house and raising an eight year old...but you know, I guess I could always take those 3AM classes you hear about. Thanks for the advice!
Hogwarts
TurtleShell wrote:
Ok! It will be hard to fit in, what with working a full time job, running a business, cleaning my house and raising an eight year old...but you know, I guess I could always take those 3AM classes you hear about. Thanks for the advice!


Don't blame the wealthy that you didn't go to university Rolling Eyes

Ps: If you're running a business and working a full time job, you're doing something wrong.
TurtleShell
You're oddly presumptuous. I did go to a university. Getting a degree does not guarantee a good income--it certainly doesn't by itself make one rich. And I don't expect rich people to give their money to me, that was a joke. Clearly it wasn't funny, but I'm not a comedian. THe business is something I'm trying out on the side because I'd like to be self employed someday but I have a family and I need a full time salary so I can't just leave where I work. And, the simple fact that I'm running a business and working a full time job doesn't mean I'm doing something wrong. People do this. It's an evening and weekends thing--not like it's a store or a gas station that needs constant attention. I believe the term is moonlighting. Anyway, I'm sure you're right--that I am doing something wrong--but since you don't know me I'm not sure why you're so comfortable saying so.
SBCBC33
If they want to...

That should be a choice that is made by the individual, not mandated by the government. I don't understand why the wealthy are continually demonized. For an interesting read on the subject, check out "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I certainly don't adhere to her entire philosophy of Objectivism but a number of points made do make sense...
Zombie
Rich people have the right to keep all of their money, and I don't see them as selfish... because they worked for it. But, if they want to share their money, then i consider them generous.
mattyj
i dont think rich people should be obligated to give their money away

they earned it, its theres to do with what they want

however, if they do give some away, they shouldnt expect a huge song and dance about how wonderful they are....i read the other day about Michael Jordan giving $50k to charity

Michael Jordan earned 100's of millions of dollars from playing basketball and endorsements, $50k to him is a pittance, why should their be a big write up about that????
Blazole
no i dont think that they should. They have earnt it right, they still pay their taxes at an higher rate than a person on a low income.

if you had a TV worth a $2000, and someone had one for $100. would you give them your TV ?

works the same with money
guissmo
It's their choice. It's not bad to keep your money, it's just somehow not fulfilling sometimes. Being rich would entail having it all while watching everyone else having none.

In the end, it is their choice.
And a lot have made the right choices.
Whong
I think that God expects those to give away more money who have been blessed with it. Jesus said: "You cannot serve both mammon and God." Christians, I think, should give their money to reach those who haven't heard of the gospel and at the same time give some humanitarion help.

We are all called to give and to help our neighbours and especially those who are of the household of God and also especially the Jews who are God's chosen nation.
Bannik
i think it depends on the individual rich person, no offense but bankers who make 100 million a year just for being them or how celebreties make millions of millions for doing nothing or like how paris hilton is paid 250,000 just for going into a club and dancing for a few seconds.

those people dont work as hard as a doctor doing 50-60 hours per week in africa saving lives or just normal doctors working every day too keep us safe, heck i think instead of taking away the money the companies should limit salaries of these people too a understandable and fair level that they deserve.

but again its all in the individual, if the person worked hard too get somewhere then its fair too say its his money..


it all depends on individual cases
ThePolemistis
deanhills wrote:
When I was in the UK during the first part of December, I happened to listen to an interview with a wealthy business man. He said the only way a person can make money is to give it away all the time. If you do not work with the money, i.e. just collect it, you cannot REALLY get wealthy. Money is meant to be spent.

I thought that was quite a good point and perhaps he was correct. Investing is probably just another way of spending money, and investing in people who are poor, another kind of investment too. Perhaps one can go even further in dimension by saying that the more you give, not only of money, but in teaching others, or helping others to further where they are in any way, the richer you get in every respect.


Nice way of looking at it,, makes sense.
raaeft1
Yes, rich people must give and give; they must share their resources with those who do not have at the present moment. Giving brings even more riches.
crossroads
This is a hard subject because when it comes to the wealthy population there are different types. Many of them have studied and got an education, worked hard up the ladder to where they are currently at. Then there is the others who have been given there wealth by either inheritances, lottery, ect.

Although many people can argue that those who are wealthy should just give up there money I feel that this is not correct. If you have become wealthy it is meant to happen. If they decide to give some of their money to a charity then good for them, if not its ok as well.
Denvis
I agree with you. Rich people earned their money through hard work. If they choose to give away their money go ahead but they don't have to if they don't want to. Most rich people are completly tight anyway, that's another reason how they got rich in the first place.
deanhills
Denvis wrote:
Most rich people are completly tight anyway, that's another reason how they got rich in the first place.
Totally agreed. Rich people, especially those who had to work quite hard to build up their fortunes, would hang on tightly to it, that is probably how they got rich in the first place. If they would give it away, I am sure they would prefer it to be their own choice. Think most rich people see taxes as a threat to their growing fortunes too, so anything coming from Government trying to separate them from their fortunes, would get lots of resistance. Usually they would have expert accountants and laywers though to ensure they can use loop-holes, and in the end probably pay much less taxes than we think they do.
gandalfthegrey
****** YES!!!
Faraz
I think rich people should do some good things with their money (by giving some of their money away to needy people), because they aren't going to take all their money with them when they die, right? So why don't do something good for the society, so they can be remembered?
Indi
i'm a little shocked that in a philosophy forum so little thought has actually gone into this problem. Over and over i see repeated that if people "worked" for their money, then they deserve it, and thus have no obligation to spread the wealth. No one seems to have questioned this assertion that it is possible to "deserve" wealth - all you have to do is just work hard enough.

Isn't anyone going to challenge that? Does everyone agree that if you have one rich person and one poor person who both started from the same place, with no lotteries or other windfalls involved, that the only way you could have this difference is if one worked really hard and the other didn't?
liljp617
Indi wrote:
Isn't anyone going to challenge that? Does everyone agree that if you have one rich person and one poor person who both started from the same place, with no lotteries or other windfalls involved, that the only way you could have this difference is if one worked really hard and the other didn't?


Perhaps slightly off topic to the question and somewhat obvious, but the rich person and poor person likely weren't dealt the same cards. I know the person who ends up on the rich side likely worked hard getting an education and eventually a job, but many of those same doors aren't nearly as open to someone who was born into a terrible situation.

And of course there are genetic predisposes. Learning disorders, personality traits, appearance, etc. that play a large role in what someone amounts to.


Probably not what you were looking for, but it's 3AM...took my thinking cap off a couple hours ago Smile
deanhills
Indi wrote:
i'm a little shocked that in a philosophy forum so little thought has actually gone into this problem. Over and over i see repeated that if people "worked" for their money, then they deserve it, and thus have no obligation to spread the wealth. No one seems to have questioned this assertion that it is possible to "deserve" wealth - all you have to do is just work hard enough.

Isn't anyone going to challenge that? Does everyone agree that if you have one rich person and one poor person who both started from the same place, with no lotteries or other windfalls involved, that the only way you could have this difference is if one worked really hard and the other didn't?
The rich man cannot be rich without the poor man and the poor man cannot be poor without the rich man. To become wealthy the rich man has to employ people and there is a good possiblity that he would be employing plenty of poor people, both in his business as well as in his personal life. He would naturally be spending money in order to run his business, as well as balance his home life, and by virtue of that he would be spreading wealth.

So to answer the question, the poor person could be working harder than the rich person, and still be poor.
spinout
U have 10 kids -> 2 kids took most of the money, 2 had some and 6 had none...
U get upset to see the 6 poor ones suffer - and they U think that atleast all the kids should have their basic needs covered and set up a rule that all should have that basic funding (without any discomfort for the 6 poor ones) - it's called TAX. And they lived better ever after!!!

Now in our world 1 kid (ONE) has 90 % of all funds - TIME TO THINK!
Hogwarts
spinout wrote:
U have 10 kids -> 2 kids took most of the money, 2 had some and 6 had none...
U get upset to see the 6 poor ones suffer - and they U think that atleast all the kids should have their basic needs covered and set up a rule that all should have that basic funding (without any discomfort for the 6 poor ones) - it's called TAX. And they lived better ever after!!!

Now in our world 1 kid (ONE) has 90 % of all funds - TIME TO THINK!


What? If I could actually understand any of that incomprehensible drivel, I might actually be able to discern what you're saying.

Of course, I can't. Could you try to talk properly and comprehensibly? Rolling Eyes

Faraz wrote:
I think rich people should do some good things with their money (by giving some of their money away to needy people), because they aren't going to take all their money with them when they die, right? So why don't do something good for the society, so they can be remembered?

Why? What's the purpose of that? Why not just spend it, and do something good for society? How many people, at last count, had lost their jobs because of the "global economic crisis"? Personally, I'd much rather it go to the direct society around me than to an over-glorified country capable of buying expensive aeroplanes and yet unable to bring 42% of their population above the poverty line.

gandalfthegrey wrote:
****** YES!!!

Look, if you want to be amongst people of your own, pathetic intellect, I suggest you go back to your image boards.

Indi wrote:
i'm a little shocked that in a philosophy forum so little thought has actually gone into this problem. Over and over i see repeated that if people "worked" for their money, then they deserve it, and thus have no obligation to spread the wealth. No one seems to have questioned this assertion that it is possible to "deserve" wealth - all you have to do is just work hard enough.

It's from these aspirations that a capitalist society succeeds. I'd say it's much less of "working hard" as opposed to "contributing to economic welfare of society". If somebody contributes to society, such as how Bill Gates has done, they deserve that said money. And, even still, Bill Gates gives a lot of his money away. However, I should iterate that this is of his own choice.

And, regardless, those who do expect "rich" people to give their money away are generally the people who waste their time on unrealistic, fallacious "Get Rich Quick" schemes. If you're thick enough to try out "The Secret" and are wondering why you're not "drawing in" any money, I think somebody should slap you around with a brick a bit. Does "Visualizing and drawing in" money contribute to Society's welfare, anyway? No. It contributes to the person who wishes they were rich and is too much of a lazy bastard to contribute in any other way.

Ps: Your "i'm" should have a capital letter due to it being both "I" and the fact that it's the start of a sentence. I'm sorry, I really just have to vent this after seeing you use it improperly so many times Sad
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
And, regardless, those who do expect "rich" people to give their money away are generally the people who waste their time on unrealistic, fallacious "Get Rich Quick" schemes. If you're thick enough to try out "The Secret" and are wondering why you're not "drawing in" any money, I think somebody should slap you around with a brick a bit.

And what exactly is your basis for this assertion? Do you suggest that socialists are generally gullible? Why would those, like myself, with a left-wing political outlook be concerned with 'get rich quick' schemes? I advocate punitive levels of tax for the super-rich and always have done - you could say that was equivalent to wanting rich people to 'give it away' - the difference is that I would take it without asking. I have never been attracted to any 'get rich quick' scheme. Does that make me the exception to your generalisation? Or does it mean that the generalisation is baseless?
disabilityinfo
My opinion, for what its worth. I believe the rich shouldn't be forced to give to causes, charities. That being said I think it would be commendable if they gave significant percentage of their earnings, investments, money market funds, however they legally get their earning to those less fortunate. What is a significant percentage? I think it s up to the individual to decide what a significant percentage is. Personally I think it should be at least ten percent.

I live in the US. I know that Bush constantly slashed funding to help the most needy. One example was in 2008 he proposed complete elimination of funding for mental health services for seniors. I know this being a disability advocate. Okay what does this to do with the topic. Should the rich be forced to give some of their earnings to the poor. Well Bush put tax cuts to the super rich. Those who earned over a quarter of a millions dollars. This being the situation, there was much less of a tax base, money to go to social programs.

One could say that if tax payers were to pay for social programs that this is forced charity. One could say should any government force their constituents to monetarily help others? I say morally people , who can, should help those who are less fortunate. I am thinking too, that the best, most efficient way to do this is promote self sustainability. Its the old saying. Its one thing to give a person a fish. Its quite another to teach them to fish. To express this differently. Its one thing to give to welfare programs. Its much more efficient to give to programs that train people for work in the real world and job placement. Don't know in other countries. Its illegal in the US to promise employment in any training and/or job program.

OTOH Bush being such so miserly, uncaring, even if there were no tax cuts, he most likely wouldn't allocate funding for social programs. So if the govt. isn't giving out funding for those less fortunate, then the choices are these two. Other sources for funding. This means individual, foundations, religious charities, other charities or tough luck.

Are the wealthy obligated to monetarily help the less fortunate. Is the only way to give their earnings away? Would it be just as charitable to serve food, beverages in a local soup kitchen? Would volunteering at a shelter be enough? Would buying a commercial product that gives a percentage of their profits to a cause or charity be considered?

I get the impression that many of these foundations are basically tax shelters. Well they may do much good. I doubt they are there for purely selfless purposes. Many organizations help the needy, research in disease treatments, cures, juveniles at risk etc, nevertheless.

Bottom line. No the rich are not obligated to give their money to people who are much less fortunate. I think it would be commendable if they do. It is my belief the most helpful way to help the needy is to concentrate of self sufficiency. One last note, being a disability advocate I know that with reasonable and fair changes, many people with disabilities can be employed. By reasonable and fair I mean to the employer, the company and the employee.

Disability Info
Jaan
yes, it's beneficial for the rich and will most likely help who it's being given to.

check the harvard/UBC study on how giving away money promotes happiness! some interesting stuff for sure!
Hogwarts
Bikerman wrote:
And what exactly is your basis for this assertion? Do you suggest that socialists are generally gullible? Why would those, like myself, with a left-wing political outlook be concerned with 'get rich quick' schemes? I advocate punitive levels of tax for the super-rich and always have done - you could say that was equivalent to wanting rich people to 'give it away' - the difference is that I would take it without asking. I have never been attracted to any 'get rich quick' scheme. Does that make me the exception to your generalisation? Or does it mean that the generalisation is baseless?


Why? If you argue that a rich person has contributed more to society more than a "poor" person, that money is theirs. Higher taxes for rich people are fallacious, begged for by people who suffer cases of tall poppy syndrome. As the richer person spends their money, they still are taxed, whether that be by GST or throughout the taxes involved in the production of the good they're buying, thus giving more money to the government and also creating a large amount of work to keep other people employed. So, effectively, the rich person is still doing much more to contribute to society. Perhaps those who use the stock or FOREX market, however, are exceptions to the "contributing to society" rule, as they hardly do so.

And, if I turned the question on you, why should "rich" people give their money away?
farmerdave
Should rich people give away their money? No and Yes. Yes and No.

Rich people should not give away their money because of external pressures to do so (because it's the law, etc.).

Rich people should give away their money because of internal desires to do so (because they want to help, etc.).

Nobody should have to give anything they earned to anyone or anything (except necessary taxes for necessary services). Everybody should give something they earned to someone or something because they want to. This doesn't simply include rich people.

But, for those who think rich people should be required to give away their money, I believe you should set the standard to a global one. If you are sitting in your home typing on your computer, you are quite a bit more wealthy than a very significant portion of the world's population, so (according to your own standard) should have to give your money away to others.

By the way, by U.S. standards I am not rich at all, but I give away some of my money (a seemingly significant chunk) because I want to (not because I have to). This includes sponsoring children overseas who don't have many of the basic necessities of life otherwise, much less the extra frills of a computer like the one I am typing this on.
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
And what exactly is your basis for this assertion? Do you suggest that socialists are generally gullible? Why would those, like myself, with a left-wing political outlook be concerned with 'get rich quick' schemes? I advocate punitive levels of tax for the super-rich and always have done - you could say that was equivalent to wanting rich people to 'give it away' - the difference is that I would take it without asking. I have never been attracted to any 'get rich quick' scheme. Does that make me the exception to your generalisation? Or does it mean that the generalisation is baseless?


Why? If you argue that a rich person has contributed more to society more than a "poor" person, that money is theirs. Higher taxes for rich people are fallacious, begged for by people who suffer cases of tall poppy syndrome. As the richer person spends their money, they still are taxed, whether that be by GST or throughout the taxes involved in the production of the good they're buying, thus giving more money to the government and also creating a large amount of work to keep other people employed. So, effectively, the rich person is still doing much more to contribute to society. Perhaps those who use the stock or FOREX market, however, are exceptions to the "contributing to society" rule, as they hardly do so.

And, if I turned the question on you, why should "rich" people give their money away?

Quite simple really.
a) Money does not act as a measure of 'contributing to society'. Even the most sophisticated markets don't factor-in social well-being, and I should really not have to point out that we have recently seen what happens to the most sophisticated markets when they are let rip.
b) I did not argue that "a rich person has contributed more to society more than a "poor" person" - you did. I would make no such argument since it is a crass generalisation and there are many exceptions in both directions.
c) You completely failed to address the question. You assert that people who advocate rich people giving their money away (or, people like me who say they should be taxed at a very high rate) are gullible fools who fall for quick-rich schemes. You have produced no evidence for that claim, other than an attempted straw-man....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
a) Money does not act as a measure of 'contributing to society'. Even the most sophisticated markets don't factor-in social well-being, and I should really not have to point out that we have recently seen what happens to the most sophisticated markets when they are let rip.
I can't agree with this statement.Quite a number of wealthy gurus claim that they got rich only because they were generating their cash in society. When I was in England in January, there was a wealthy entrepreneur who who put it nicely for me. He said he could only have gotten rich by giving his money away, meaning one has to circulate your money in order for wealth to attach to it. Entrepreneurs like that are already contributing to society by the act of "making money" even before we start to think about taxes. They are the "producers" in society, whereas most of everyone else are "consumers".
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) Money does not act as a measure of 'contributing to society'. Even the most sophisticated markets don't factor-in social well-being, and I should really not have to point out that we have recently seen what happens to the most sophisticated markets when they are let rip.
I can't agree with this statement.Quite a number of wealthy gurus claim that they got rich only because they were generating their cash in society.
I don't understand the meaning of that sentence...perhaps you could explain?
Quote:
When I was in England in January, there was a wealthy entrepreneur who said he could only get rich by giving his money away, meaning one has to circulate your money in order for wealth to attach to it.

a) Anecdotal evidence of a very poor quality
b) Complete bollox. A moment of reflection, and dare I suggest research, shows exactly how ridiculous that is.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) Money does not act as a measure of 'contributing to society'. Even the most sophisticated markets don't factor-in social well-being, and I should really not have to point out that we have recently seen what happens to the most sophisticated markets when they are let rip.
I can't agree with this statement.Quite a number of wealthy gurus claim that they got rich only because they were generating their cash in society.
I don't understand the meaning of that sentence...perhaps you could explain?
Quote:
When I was in England in January, there was a wealthy entrepreneur who said he could only get rich by giving his money away, meaning one has to circulate your money in order for wealth to attach to it.

a) Anecdotal evidence of a very poor quality
b) Complete bollox. A moment of reflection, and dare I suggest research, shows exactly how ridiculous that is.
I don't think much of the language that was used to express your opinion. But sticking to the subject of discussion, perhaps you can come up with your own opinion as well instead of only tackling other people's opinions in this thread?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) Money does not act as a measure of 'contributing to society'. Even the most sophisticated markets don't factor-in social well-being, and I should really not have to point out that we have recently seen what happens to the most sophisticated markets when they are let rip.
I can't agree with this statement.Quite a number of wealthy gurus claim that they got rich only because they were generating their cash in society.
I don't understand the meaning of that sentence...perhaps you could explain?
Quote:
When I was in England in January, there was a wealthy entrepreneur who said he could only get rich by giving his money away, meaning one has to circulate your money in order for wealth to attach to it.

a) Anecdotal evidence of a very poor quality
b) Complete bollox. A moment of reflection, and dare I suggest research, shows exactly how ridiculous that is.
I don't think much of the language that was used to express your opinion. But sticking to the subject of discussion, perhaps you can come up with your own opinion as well instead of only tackling other people's opinions in this thread?
My own opinion has been made perfectly clear in the previous postings. Exactly how 'clear' do you wish me to be?
I believe that punitive taxes should be imposed on the very rich. This is the only way that a supposedly capitalist society can provide for the majority. I don't believe that anyone is 'worth' billions. In fact I believe that many, if not most, of the richest people currently around have contributed very little to the well-being of society as a whole.

Clear?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:

Clear?
Crystal!
Hogwarts
I'll answer what you've said with something else you've said.

Bikerman wrote:
This is the only way that a supposedly capitalist society can provide for the majority. I don't believe that anyone is 'worth' billions. In fact I believe that many, if not most, of the richest people currently around have contributed very little to the well-being of society as a whole.

Bikerman wrote:
a) Anecdotal evidence of a very poor quality
b) Complete bollox. A moment of reflection, and dare I suggest research, shows exactly how ridiculous that is.


What you've said is absolute garbage. A capitalist society can function only by putting tax upon the salary of rich people? Either you've worded that poorly, or my previous respect for your intellect was way more than that which you should have been given credit for.

And, honestly, does it matter what you "believe"? Some people unquestioningly believe in a divine being creating the universe; and, well, I can't really say more before I begin offending people.
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
I'll answer what you've said with something else you've said.

Bikerman wrote:
This is the only way that a supposedly capitalist society can provide for the majority. I don't believe that anyone is 'worth' billions. In fact I believe that many, if not most, of the richest people currently around have contributed very little to the well-being of society as a whole.

Bikerman wrote:
a) Anecdotal evidence of a very poor quality
b) Complete bollox. A moment of reflection, and dare I suggest research, shows exactly how ridiculous that is.


What you've said is absolute garbage. A capitalist society can function only by putting tax upon the salary of rich people? Either you've worded that poorly, or my previous respect for your intellect was way more than that which you should have been given credit for.
It is not garbage at all. Most capitalist countries or states function EXACTLY in that manner. The small number of exceptions get their public finances from other means - either by acting as Tax Havens or from cartels/monopolies of natural resources such as the Gulf States.
Hogwarts
Bikerman wrote:
It is not garbage at all. Most capitalist countries or states function EXACTLY in that manner. The small number of exceptions get their public finances from other means - either by acting as Tax Havens or from cartels/monopolies of natural resources such as the Gulf States.


So, what, you assume that the majority of a state's income is gained through taxation upon the salary of rich people? The income tax for individuals in Australia, whilst around 1/3rd of the government's revenue, is steadily declining in proportion to other taxes. In 2006, it accounted for half of the Government's income; an obvious 1/6th decrease in proportion to the rest of the Government's income. Now, it's also to be noted that this isn't only tax upon rich people. Indeed, I doubt highly that a very significant amount of this at all is from the "very rich", despite the Government continually (and, unjustly) increasing taxes upon those who earn salaries above the average. Many of the largest income countries in Australia aren't Australian owned, such as Mobil, which effectively narrows the "very rich" amount down dramatically.

And yet, Australia isn't crashing and burning. No, I maintain my stance. That assumption and belief of yours is complete garbage.
Bikerman
Australia has a top rate of tax set at 45c in the dollar - higher than in many other countries (including the UK). Not exactly supportive of your case....
If you look at western democracies which are partly capitalist (Europe, for example) and other democracies which are pretty much entirely capitalist (the US), then you see differentiated tax bands which tax the rich at a higher rate. The only exceptions, as I said, are small mickey-mouse off-shore 'operations' like Jersey and Lichtenstein which act as tax havens. Why do you think a capitalist country like the US has a higher tax rate for the rich?
Income tax is progressive - it allows some redistribution of the national wealth. Other forms of tax are largely regressive - they affect the poorer members of society disproportionately.
Hogwarts
And what benefit does a rich person gain from society due /to/ their higher taxes? Progressive taxes pervert equality, and provide no benefits to the richer people who pay more for them. Shouldn't, ethically, a rich person (who pays more for health care infrastructure) get better public health care than a poorer person who doesn't?

And what, even, is the point of aspiring in a society like that? If I have a salary double that of somebody else due to a more difficult job, and yet the tax equalizes our overall money? Perhaps I could simply take my services elsewhere and work in a less State-driven economy. However, that would be bad for the country of origin, as they would eventually find themselves in a shortage of highly-skilled workers.


Also, why was this moved to the philosophy forum? It's an economic issue o_O
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
And what benefit does a rich person gain from society due /to/ their higher taxes? Progressive taxes pervert equality, and provide no benefits to the richer people who pay more for them. Shouldn't, ethically, a rich person (who pays more for health care infrastructure) get better public health care than a poorer person who doesn't?
You assume that those who earn high rewards do so entirely on merit - I disagree. Progressive taxes certainly do not pervert equality - they make society more equal, not less. The money earned by the super rich comes from exploiting the less rich, either as consumers or workers, or both. Without such people there would be no wealth.
Quote:
And what, even, is the point of aspiring in a society like that? If I have a salary double that of somebody else due to a more difficult job, and yet the tax equalizes our overall money? Perhaps I could simply take my services elsewhere and work in a less State-driven economy. However, that would be bad for the country of origin, as they would eventually find themselves in a shortage of highly-skilled workers.
Yes - the same tired argument is trotted out all the time. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In the 1950s and 1960s the US had a marginal top tax rate of 91%. That period is also regarded by most as a 'golden era'.
You think that jobs are paid according to the difficulty? I don't think so myself.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
You think that jobs are paid according to the difficulty? I don't think so myself.
Agreed. Teachers are completely underpaid, especially math and science teachers, who are then lost by being gobbled up by large organizations, agencies and commerce. However that has more to do with mismanagement of available funds by Government? Government has to be key in the redistribution of wealth, not the wealthy? I would love the wealthy to take over the Government. Perhaps we would then get greater efficiency? Governments have grown into literal black holes of tax monies. Consider trillions in debt these days and debt now growing by trillions and not millions any longer. Why shift that burden on the people who are wealthy? Perhaps there needs to be a complete overhaul of BIG Government, BIG Banks, BIG Insurance companies to make things lean and mean and transparent.

Agreed with Hogwarth, maybe this thread needs to move to Economy.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You think that jobs are paid according to the difficulty? I don't think so myself.
Agreed. Teachers are completely underpaid, especially math and science teachers, who are then lost by being gobbled up by large organizations, agencies and commerce. However that has more to do with mismanagement of available funds by Government? Government has to be key in the redistribution of wealth, not the wealthy? I would love the wealthy to take over the Government. Perhaps we would then get greater efficiency?
LOL...Let's give government to the Bankers eh? They've done such a bang-up job!
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
I would love the wealthy to take over the Government. Perhaps we would then get greater efficiency?


Were you joking there? I would definitely not like to see the most wealthy people take over the government. I'd rather see the most capable leaders take over the government. Being rich doesn't mean that you'd run things better... Ever heard of Paris Hilton (or almost anyone other athlete, crappy pop singer/rapper, actor, actress, etc.)?

Besides, I agree with Bikerman in this thread. Nobody is "worth" billions and money tends to be distributed in a crappy way. I don't really like rap music but this does remind me of a rap lyric I once heard (I believe the rapper was "50 Cent"):

Quote:
I'm the high school drop-out making more than his teachers


Rich people should give some of their money away. I do not believe in complete equality because history has shown us that people will not work their hardest without an incentive. Why should I bust my ass in college if I'll be completely equal to someone with a Ph.D? But I do believe that every single person who tries (in other words, if you sit on your ass in your parents house at age 30 smoking trees every day then you do not deserve anything) should have their basic necessities met. Nobody should have to not have everything that they need to live. Once everyone (who tries) has what they need, then there should be room to improve your lifestyle and become wealthy.

I'm not really into labeling myself in a political sense but I guess I'd be somewhere between a socialist and capitalist...[/quote]
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I would love the wealthy to take over the Government. Perhaps we would then get greater efficiency?


Were you joking there? I would definitely not like to see the most wealthy people take over the government. I'd rather see the most capable leaders take over the government. Being rich doesn't mean that you'd run things better... Ever heard of Paris Hilton (or almost anyone other athlete, crappy pop singer/rapper, actor, actress, etc.)?
To be successful in business would presume capabilities that would be good for running Government. I can't imagine that people would vote for Paris Hilton. If the likes of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Michael Dell or Michael Bloomberg would stand for election, I can imagine they would get more serious attention.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I would love the wealthy to take over the Government. Perhaps we would then get greater efficiency?


Were you joking there? I would definitely not like to see the most wealthy people take over the government. I'd rather see the most capable leaders take over the government. Being rich doesn't mean that you'd run things better... Ever heard of Paris Hilton (or almost anyone other athlete, crappy pop singer/rapper, actor, actress, etc.)?
To be successful in business would presume capabilities that would be good for running Government. I can't imagine that people would vote for Paris Hilton. If the likes of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Michael Dell or Michael Bloomberg would stand for election, I can imagine they would get more serious attention.

Bad idea. The primary role of a successful business person is to make money for the shareholders. That is most often done by 'efficiency' or 'productivity' increases (both involve doing the same or more with less). I do not want my politicians to be efficiency experts - that is the job of the advisors and civil servants who work under them. I want my politicians to be honest and motivated by public service, not profit.
Here in the UK we are currently seeing what happens when politicians are not focussed on public service - there is currently a huge stink over MPs expense claims.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Bad idea. The primary role of a successful business person is to make money for the shareholders. That is most often done by 'efficiency' or 'productivity' increases (both involve doing the same or more with less). I do not want my politicians to be efficiency experts - that is the job of the advisors and civil servants who work under them. I want my politicians to be honest and motivated by public service, not profit.
Here in the UK we are currently seeing what happens when politicians are not focussed on public service - there is currently a huge stink over MPs expense claims.
In order for the successful business person to make money for the shareholders, (a) it has to have the people working for it motivated (b) it also have to have society motivated to buy its products, so would work hard on an image of honesty, generosity and caring about people. Bloomberg really impresses me in this way.

Government officials are notoriously lacking in skills with management of money, especially taxpayer's money. The stink over MPs expense claims is testimony to that.
Indi
Hogwarts wrote:
It's from these aspirations that a capitalist society succeeds. I'd say it's much less of "working hard" as opposed to "contributing to economic welfare of society".

A capitalist society doesn't require you thinking that you "deserve" wealth for working hard, just that you will probably get it.

Hogwarts wrote:
If somebody contributes to society, such as how Bill Gates has done, they deserve that said money. And, even still, Bill Gates gives a lot of his money away. However, I should iterate that this is of his own choice.

You carefully dropped the part about "economic welfare", so that now Bill Gates isn't just contributing to the "economic welfare of society", he's somehow contributing society in general.

Bill Gates is a good example though. Yes, he certainly brought a good product to society many years ago, and got wealthy off of it. And good for him - i wouldn't say he was entitled to get rich for either MS-DOS or Windows, but i wouldn't say he shouldn't have either. He made a good product, and he got a big chunk of the economy for it.

OK... but now what? Now he's rich - he made a good product and took a disproportionate chunk of the society's wealth because of it. So now what should we do? Sit back and pray that he gives back most - or at least some - of the extra wealth he's acquired? Or tax him higher to make sure that some or most of that disproportionate share of wealth eventually gets back, which creates less poor people and more opportunities for other people to earn big chunks of wealth? Isn't it pretty clear which option is better for the economic welfare of society?

And let's not kid ourselves - Bill Gates was most certainly not a clear cut case of social benefit. Yes, in his early days he did make a good product and got rich off of it... but what about his later years? Years and years of shoddy products and stomping out smaller businesses and trying to undermine people who were giving away products of equivalent quality for free. Was that good for society?

Does Bill Gates "deserve" his enormous wealth more than a person who dedicates their entire life to teaching in poor areas (and who never once put anyone out of business, by the way)?

Bottom line:
  • No one "deserves" the wealth they have. They did not get it by virtue of hard work, they got it by virtue of luck. Yes. Everyone. No-one, ever, anywhere, got rich by hard work alone - luck had to be on their side... but on on the other hand, lots of people have gotten rich by doing no work at all.
  • Anyone who has more than an equal share of the society's wealth is making other people in that society poor. This is ok in the short term, because the economy is dynamic, but in the long term if that wealth is not redistributed you end up with a few very, very rich and tons of very very poor.
  • Not every job that is critical to society generates wealth. Should those people - whom we need desperately - have to suffer in squalor because a handful of people are sucking up all the wealth? Or should we put steps in place to make sure some of that wealth gets back to those who work just as hard, just not at jobs that pay very well?
Hogwarts
And yet, I'm yet to see either you or Chris come up with an explanation of a circumstance where a person should be allowed to be "richer" than another person. Unarguably, some people do deserve more wealth than others. Bill Gates, especially, deserved vastly more wealth than that of people who did nothing more than leech off of society.

Indi wrote:
Years and years of shoddy products and stomping out smaller businesses and trying to undermine people who were giving away products of equivalent quality for free. Was that good for society?

Whilst off-topic (see here), that's completely relative to your perception of Microsoft products and if, indeed, they are shoddy.
Indi
Hogwarts wrote:
And yet, I'm yet to see either you or Chris come up with an explanation of a circumstance where a person should be allowed to be "richer" than another person.

What explanation is needed? They should be allowed to be richer if they've managed to get richer. If they've got it (legally, of course), there's no reason to just take it all away. Let them have it.

BUT, along with the privilege of having more than average wealth, comes the responsibility of making a more than average contribution to the rest of society. What's complicated about that?

Hogwarts wrote:
Unarguably, some people do deserve more wealth than others.

You have a curious definition for "unarguably", given that i just finished a post arguing several points against that claim.

Hogwarts wrote:
Bill Gates, especially, deserved vastly more wealth than that of people who did nothing more than leech off of society.

Like, for example, those that teach underprivileged kids that i mentioned?

Bill Gates does not deserve more wealth, he has more wealth. There is a universe of difference. Whether or not the amount of wealth he got is in proportion to the amount of good he did is debatable, but i'm not interested in debating it. i say he's got it, fine: but in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to keep a larger than average chunk of society's wealth, he should be responsible for supporting a larger than average chunk of society. It's only fair.
Hogwarts
Indi wrote:

Hogwarts wrote:
Unarguably, some people do deserve more wealth than others.

You have a curious definition for "unarguably", given that i just finished a post arguing several points against that claim.

And yet, your reasoning behind that is, I find, stupid.

Indi wrote:
No one "deserves" the wealth they have. They did not get it by virtue of hard work, they got it by virtue of luck. Yes. Everyone. No-one, ever, anywhere, got rich by hard work alone - luck had to be on their side... but on on the other hand, lots of people have gotten rich by doing no work at all.

Luck? What's luck? Are you referring to that concept described by those who are too lazy to analyze other variables? Rolling Eyes

Indi wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
Bill Gates, especially, deserved vastly more wealth than that of people who did nothing more than leech off of society.

Like, for example, those that teach underprivileged kids that i mentioned?

Bill Gates does not deserve more wealth, he has more wealth. There is a universe of difference. Whether or not the amount of wealth he got is in proportion to the amount of good he did is debatable, but i'm not interested in debating it. i say he's got it, fine: but in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to keep a larger than average chunk of society's wealth, he should be responsible for supporting a larger than average chunk of society. It's only fair.

I'm not talking about him being more deserving of wealth than somebody who teaches underprivileged kids (although, as a side note, I do believe he does anyway. Does making a living as a software engineer have rewards other than wealth? A teacher has the reward of seeing the success of their students, at least. A teacher of underprivileged kids also has the reward of knowing that they're doing a job voluntarily and probably not one with their own survival in mind. Does that deserve even remuneration? Isn't it, itself, remuneration?) but that he deserves more wealth than those who live in the dole queues and don't have jobs, do community service or do anything useful to society for all matters and purposes.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
Bottom line:
  • No one "deserves" the wealth they have. They did not get it by virtue of hard work, they got it by virtue of luck. Yes. Everyone. No-one, ever, anywhere, got rich by hard work alone - luck had to be on their side... but on on the other hand, lots of people have gotten rich by doing no work at all.
  • Anyone who has more than an equal share of the society's wealth is making other people in that society poor. This is ok in the short term, because the economy is dynamic, but in the long term if that wealth is not redistributed you end up with a few very, very rich and tons of very very poor.
  • Not every job that is critical to society generates wealth. Should those people - whom we need desperately - have to suffer in squalor because a handful of people are sucking up all the wealth? Or should we put steps in place to make sure some of that wealth gets back to those who work just as hard, just not at jobs that pay very well?

Think you left out the marketing part of Gates' efforts, which has little to do with "luck". Working hard, or being lucky to have found an opening in the market to get rich by are not enough to get wealthy. Gates is a whizz at marketing. This is key to wealth. Part of the marketing is to do good works, give back to society, so by implication of becoming more wealthy, the person who is creating the wealth, has to return of the wealth to society in order to become more wealthy. The two aren't living in separate worlds, they are interlinked and live off one another as an intrinsic whole. The moment Gates loses touch of society he will stop generating more wealth. Society will lose as a consequence as well.
Indi
Hogwarts wrote:
Indi wrote:

Hogwarts wrote:
Unarguably, some people do deserve more wealth than others.

You have a curious definition for "unarguably", given that i just finished a post arguing several points against that claim.

And yet, your reasoning behind that is, I find, stupid.

You might not find it stupid if you actually tried to read and understand it.

Hogwarts wrote:
Indi wrote:
No one "deserves" the wealth they have. They did not get it by virtue of hard work, they got it by virtue of luck. Yes. Everyone. No-one, ever, anywhere, got rich by hard work alone - luck had to be on their side... but on on the other hand, lots of people have gotten rich by doing no work at all.

Luck? What's luck? Are you referring to that concept described by those who are too lazy to analyze other variables? Rolling Eyes

No, i am referring to "elements beyond one's control aligning in a favourable manner". Please consult a dictionary for further definitions of "luck". You will not find your definition there.

Hogwarts wrote:
I'm not talking about him being more deserving of wealth than somebody who teaches underprivileged kids (although, as a side note, I do believe he does anyway. Does making a living as a software engineer have rewards other than wealth? A teacher has the reward of seeing the success of their students, at least. A teacher of underprivileged kids also has the reward of knowing that they're doing a job voluntarily and probably not one with their own survival in mind. Does that deserve even remuneration? Isn't it, itself, remuneration?) but that he deserves more wealth than those who live in the dole queues and don't have jobs, do community service or do anything useful to society for all matters and purposes.

Uh huh. And if Bill Gates is really doing as much good for the economy as you keep implying he is, why can't his renumeration be feeling good about that, rather than cash money?

Of course Bill Gates will end up with more money than panhandlers or people living off of welfare. That's fine. But why does he make more money than the guy who works 14 hours a day routing the subway trains (for example). That guy does far more for the economy in a day than Bill Gates will do in his lifetime - and he works a hell of a lot harder, too - but Bill Gates makes thousands of times as much as he does. You say the subway guy gets paid in satisfaction at helping so many people, why isn't that also true for Gates? i smell a double standard here.

And for the record, i am not advocating taking some of Gates' wealth and just handing it out to slackers that sit on their duffs and do nothing. That's not real socialism, that's just how propagandists characterize it to scare people away from it. i am advocating taking some of Gates' wealth and putting it back into the society that allowed him to get rich in the first place: to fix roads, emergency management (including police, fire and military), upgrading infrastructure, subsidizing education, health, and so on.

deanhills wrote:
Think you left out the marketing part of Gates' efforts, which has little to do with "luck". Working hard, or being lucky to have found an opening in the market to get rich by are not enough to get wealthy. Gates is a whizz at marketing. This is key to wealth. Part of the marketing is to do good works, give back to society, so by implication of becoming more wealthy, the person who is creating the wealth, has to return of the wealth to society in order to become more wealthy. The two aren't living in separate worlds, they are interlinked and live off one another as an intrinsic whole. The moment Gates loses touch of society he will stop generating more wealth. Society will lose as a consequence as well.

No, i didn't leave out Gates' cleverness at marketing - i just lumped it in under luck. Did he work for his business savvy? Or was he born with an edge? And if he had to learn his business acumen (which i doubt, from what little i know of his history), then did he work for his intelligence and ability to learn well? Or was he born genetically lucky, with a good learning aptitude?

This can go on and on - i could keep pointing out things about Bill Gates that he certainly didn't work for, and that he got by luck for ever (like the fact that he has no serious disabilities, the fact that he was born to wealthy and connected parents and not rednecks in the middle of nowhere, the fact that he did several illegal things both in his early years and later on but found leniency rather than unforgiving prosecutors, etc. etc..). Yes, he worked hard, i'm not denying that. But he also got a lucky break. And he also lived in a society that allowed him to succeed. That's not one, but two reasons he doesn't "deserve" his money. Personally, i don't put much stock in the luck argument (except for the fact that it completely destroys the "he worked hard" argument), but the fact that society gave Gates the tools and the chance to succeed tells me he owes society something back.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
This can go on and on - i could keep pointing out things about Bill Gates that he certainly didn't work for, and that he got by luck for ever (like the fact that he has no serious disabilities, the fact that he was born to wealthy and connected parents and not rednecks in the middle of nowhere, the fact that he did several illegal things both in his early years and later on but found leniency rather than unforgiving prosecutors, etc. etc..). Yes, he worked hard, i'm not denying that. But he also got a lucky break. And he also lived in a society that allowed him to succeed. That's not one, but two reasons he doesn't "deserve" his money. Personally, i don't put much stock in the luck argument (except for the fact that it completely destroys the "he worked hard" argument), but the fact that society gave Gates the tools and the chance to succeed tells me he owes society something back.
Gates is much smarter than any of us put together. He absolutely deserves the wealth he has. If he did not, then someone smarter would have capsized Microsoft a long time ago. (I've been hoping for that as I don't like someone with as big a market share as he has).

Part of Gates' success, in addition to all the things I've mentioned, is that he does not operate in a vacuum, and he also gives back to society. Is very well connected with Governments and societies all over the world, and specifically in Seattle has made a tremendous contribution to the city in millions of ways. I would not be surprised if someone should draw a comparison between his contributions to society and his wealth, that both are directly related to one another. The more he contributes to society (not only in money but also in programmes) the wealthier he is getting.

I would be interested to hear your comment about whether Oprah deserves her wealth? And whether she deserves it more than Gates does his?
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
This can go on and on - i could keep pointing out things about Bill Gates that he certainly didn't work for, and that he got by luck for ever (like the fact that he has no serious disabilities, the fact that he was born to wealthy and connected parents and not rednecks in the middle of nowhere, the fact that he did several illegal things both in his early years and later on but found leniency rather than unforgiving prosecutors, etc. etc..). Yes, he worked hard, i'm not denying that. But he also got a lucky break. And he also lived in a society that allowed him to succeed. That's not one, but two reasons he doesn't "deserve" his money. Personally, i don't put much stock in the luck argument (except for the fact that it completely destroys the "he worked hard" argument), but the fact that society gave Gates the tools and the chance to succeed tells me he owes society something back.
Gates is much smarter than any of us put together. He absolutely deserves the wealth he has. If he did not, then someone smarter would have capsized Microsoft a long time ago. (I've been hoping for that as I don't like someone with as big a market share as he has).

Part of Gates' success, in addition to all the things I've mentioned, is that he does not operate in a vacuum, and he also gives back to society. Is very well connected with Governments and societies all over the world, and specifically in Seattle has made a tremendous contribution to the city in millions of ways. I would not be surprised if someone should draw a comparison between his contributions to society and his wealth, that both are directly related to one another. The more he contributes to society (not only in money but also in programmes) the wealthier he is getting.

I would be interested to hear your comment about whether Oprah deserves her wealth? And whether she deserves it more than Gates does his?

You think Bill Gates "deserves" his wealth because he was born with a natural talent: intelligence? If intelligence is what makes Bill Gates "deserve" his wealth, then shouldn't Theodore Kaczynski be as rich as Gates? They have comparable IQs after all. (And i tested with 404! ^_^)

Does Shaquille O'Neal "deserve" his wealth because he was born tall? Does Mariah Carey "deserve" her wealth because of her great voice?

And no, if Gates' charity has any part of his success, it's a very tiny one. The man made his money as a software tycoon, not as a philanthropist... and let's not view his career with rose coloured glasses, he was one of the most cutthroat operators in the industry for years. How many times was he called up on various monopoly charges? Haven't you heard of the Halloween Documents? The man was not Hitler, but he was no saint, and no, he most certainly did not make his millions by being nice, he made them by being very nasty indeed.

But even if he was the perfect little boy scout, and made all of his money by being a sweetheart, does he still "deserve" to take a disproportionate share of wealth away from society? Just consider half of his money - take that half of his money away... is he suffering now? Hardly. But that money could make thousands of starving families comfortable. Does Gates "deserve" to keep that money... which he doesn't really need... even though people are starving or forgoing medical treatments for want of it?

Put yourself in the imaginary position of having control of just half of Bill Gates' money - you can do whatever you want with it. Do you really believe that he "deserves" that money? Then give it to him. Otherwise, use it to help people in need. Which will you do?
deanhills
Indi wrote:
But even if he was the perfect little boy scout, and made all of his money by being a sweetheart, does he still "deserve" to take a disproportionate share of wealth away from society? Just consider half of his money - take that half of his money away... is he suffering now? Hardly. But that money could make thousands of starving families comfortable. Does Gates "deserve" to keep that money... which he doesn't really need... even though people are starving or forgoing medical treatments for want of it?

Put yourself in the imaginary position of having control of just half of Bill Gates' money - you can do whatever you want with it. Do you really believe that he "deserves" that money? Then give it to him. Otherwise, use it to help people in need. Which will you do?
If all people should feel guilty about keeping the money they earned, there would be no money going around to the poor. The incentive for making money would totally evaporate if the wealthy thought their proceeds have to go to starving families. What incentive would there be to have large corporations? So if Gates does not have such a large corporation and only earns enough to feed his own family, there would be zero wealth to be given away to others, whereas at least there is a percentage of his wealth that is shared with poor people and research for future progress.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
If all people should feel guilty about keeping the money they earned, there would be no money going around to the poor. The incentive for making money would totally evaporate if the wealthy thought their proceeds have to go to starving families. What incentive would there be to have large corporations? So if Gates does not have such a large corporation and only earns enough to feed his own family, there would be zero wealth to be given away to others, whereas at least there is a percentage of his wealth that is shared with poor people and research for future progress.

But you just finished saying that Gates "deserves" his wealth because he gives back to society... now you say that if he has to give back to society he would never have gone ahead and earned his wealth because then he would have had to give it back. Smells a little circular.

If Gates did not earn such a substantially large portion of the society's cash, then there would have been more of it to go around... so there wouldn't be any need to share any of his wealth around to others because it would already be there. Gates only has it because he took it from others in the first place... there would be no need to redistribute if he hadn't. Again, seems circular.
Hogwarts
Indi wrote:
But you just finished saying that Gates "deserves" his wealth because he gives back to society... now you say that if he has to give back to society he would never have gone ahead and earned his wealth because then he would have had to give it back. Smells a little circular.

If Gates did not earn such a substantially large portion of the society's cash, then there would have been more of it to go around... so there wouldn't be any need to share any of his wealth around to others because it would already be there. Gates only has it because he took it from others in the first place... there would be no need to redistribute if he hadn't. Again, seems circular.


And then from who's money (in funds in banks) such as Gates' will people loan money? Without there being that surplus of wealth for individuals, there is no money to borrow from. Investments stop, companies begin to dominate markets, and basically things go down hill. Effectively, yes, he is giving it back to society simply by having it.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
If Gates did not earn such a substantially large portion of the society's cash, then there would have been more of it to go around... so there wouldn't be any need to share any of his wealth around to others because it would already be there. Gates only has it because he took it from others in the first place... there would be no need to redistribute if he hadn't. Again, seems circular.
Gates earned his own money, not "society's cash". He is producing products which people need and for which they are paying money to him - "his money" in return for products and services. The incentive that guided him to starting "Windows" was to make money. Not only was he successful in creating this, but he is also successful in maintaining all his markets. If there had been no incentive he may not have been as motivated to create what society needed. Take away the incentive of earning wealth, and people may be more inclined to not care about creating products as they are right now.
Indi
Hogwarts wrote:
And then from who's money (in funds in banks) such as Gates' will people loan money? Without there being that surplus of wealth for individuals, there is no money to borrow from. Investments stop, companies begin to dominate markets, and basically things go down hill. Effectively, yes, he is giving it back to society simply by having it.

That is another circular argument. If the wealth is distributed evenly, there won't be nearly as much need to borrow. If you take the top 10 richest Americans and distribute their money among all Americans equally, each person gets almost $1000 more. But hang on, in reality that money wouldn't be distributed among everyone equally - only to those that need it. When you calculate that, making generous estimates, that's almost $5000 per person in need. And that's just a lump sum in the pocket right now... if you apply the same calculation to income, then you get similarly large improvements in how much money they make on a regular basis.

So there will be less borrowing and less debt... but what if someone does need to borrow? According to your defeatist vision, that just can't happen, right? Hardly. ^_^;

What would happen is rather than having monolithic titans lending out money, you would have co-ops lending out money. People that don't have any use for all of their money would pool it with others, and lend it at interest. Problem solved. Was it really that hard? ^_^;

And wait! There's more! Because when you do things this way, then even if there is a financial disaster and tons of people are unable to pay back their debts, you don't end up with your banks collapsing because all of your eggs aren't in one basket. Defaulting on a co-op loan will spread the hurt around, giving hundreds or thousands of people light hurt, instead one massive corporation a giant hurt.

So now, instead of your economic growth being based on debt, it is based on production. Yes, i freely admit: it will be much slower economic growth... but on the other hand it will be sustainable growth. And the evidence is already on the table that the other way doesn't work.

deanhills wrote:
Gates earned his own money, not "society's cash". He is producing products which people need and for which they are paying money to him - "his money" in return for products and services. The incentive that guided him to starting "Windows" was to make money. Not only was he successful in creating this, but he is also successful in maintaining all his markets. If there had been no incentive he may not have been as motivated to create what society needed. Take away the incentive of earning wealth, and people may be more inclined to not care about creating products as they are right now.

Gates' money is society's cash. ^_^; That's how the economy works. Money doesn't come from nowhere. There is a fixed amount of American cash available to be shared among all Americans (and the rest of the world, but bringing the whole world into the equation doesn't change the results, it just complicates the equation). That fixed amount is regulated by the American version of the Central Bank - it may be called the Federal Reserve there.

Gates cannot create money, he can only take it from others. (And he can't destroy money either - if you don't believe me, walk into a police station, burn a dollar bill and enjoy the next six months in prison.) When he sold Windows, he took other people's money. That's the bottom line.

And i'm fine with that. And no, i am not trying to take away the incentive for earning wealth. i am trying to take away the incentive for earning stupid amounts of wealth. Gates made Windows, he got rich, great. Was there a need for him to go on to create Windows XP and Vista, while aggressively destroying competitors were also trying to earn their little chunk of wealth with competing products that may have been as good or even better?

i am not saying we should go Communist - that is ridiculous. Yes, people should be allowed to earn more than their neighbours by making better products or providing better services. But i am saying that simply having no caps on any of this is absurd. There is currently no reason why i shouldn't create an awesome product or products, aggressively destroy any and all competitors by any means i can get away with, soak up the entire American monetary pool, and leave everyone else destitute. Tell me why i can't just crush everyone and everything else en route to gathering up as much wealth as i possibly can - way more than i need.

By making it less attractive to be stupidly rich, you are not crushing the incentive to earn - there is still plenty of incentive to earn more than your neighbours... just not to ridiculous amounts. You get rich, then you stop and enjoy your wealth, and let the next guy get rich.

And you know what - far from discouraging trying to get rich... this should make it more appealing! Because now more and more people can get rich - granted, not stupidly rich, but rich - so there is more incentive for me to try to make a product and get a chunk of the wealth without fearing being crushed under the weight of someone who already has 10 times my wealth but wants more and is willing to bankrupt me to get it.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
Gates' money is society's cash. ^_^; That's how the economy works. Money doesn't come from nowhere.
OK. If we use this argument then maybe we have to look at the reverse side of it. People took Gates' products. In order to take those products they have to give Gates society's money.
Indi wrote:
There is a fixed amount of American cash available to be shared among all Americans (and the rest of the world, but bringing the whole world into the equation doesn't change the results, it just complicates the equation). That fixed amount is regulated by the American version of the Central Bank - it may be called the Federal Reserve there.
I don't believe there is a fixed amount of money going around. All you have to do is to look at the very steadily increasing debt. At the beginning of the year Obama got a 1.2 trillion bail-out package approved. The Bank is churning out money that does not exist labelling it "debt". In the beginning it was millions. Now it is trillions.
Indi wrote:
And i'm fine with that. And no, i am not trying to take away the incentive for earning wealth. i am trying to take away the incentive for earning stupid amounts of wealth.
OK. Then what would the incentive be if the amounts of wealth is taken out of the picture?
Indi wrote:
And you know what - far from discouraging trying to get rich... this should make it more appealing! Because now more and more people can get rich - granted, not stupidly rich, but rich - so there is more incentive for me to try to make a product and get a chunk of the wealth without fearing being crushed under the weight of someone who already has 10 times my wealth but wants more and is willing to bankrupt me to get it.
I like this idea, as I would like to get rich too ... so how do you think this could be achieved? How does one make it less attractive to be stupidly rich? How can we get Gates to be less rich?
paytime
I´m a student for international business administration and one of the reasons I started studying was the prospect of being able to get a good job and of course earn the salary which comes with it. I would put much less effort in my studies and in my future work, if I would be forced to give away a certain amount of my money to (for example) charity.
Hogwarts
Indi wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
And then from who's money (in funds in banks) such as Gates' will people loan money? Without there being that surplus of wealth for individuals, there is no money to borrow from. Investments stop, companies begin to dominate markets, and basically things go down hill. Effectively, yes, he is giving it back to society simply by having it.

That is another circular argument. If the wealth is distributed evenly, there won't be nearly as much need to borrow. If you take the top 10 richest Americans and distribute their money among all Americans equally, each person gets almost $1000 more. But hang on, in reality that money wouldn't be distributed among everyone equally - only to those that need it. When you calculate that, making generous estimates, that's almost $5000 per person in need. And that's just a lump sum in the pocket right now... if you apply the same calculation to income, then you get similarly large improvements in how much money they make on a regular basis.


And yet, you're implying that everybody "deserves" to have equal wealth. Would there be any need for competition in a market if everybody was paid similar amounts of money? Probably not. And then we have a large amount of market failure occurring as nobody gives a damn about anything. Yes, there won't be a need to borrow, because nobody would be willing to found new companies to compete with the existing ones!

Indi wrote:
What would happen is rather than having monolithic titans lending out money, you would have co-ops lending out money. People that don't have any use for all of their money would pool it with others, and lend it at interest.


And we have a circular argument again. Say several invest their money/time, make more money, and .. then what? They have above average wealth in society and have to give it out again? Or does society return to as it currently is and invalidate this foolishly "utopic" idea?
Moshkin_Khan
It'd be nice to think that when people get rich, they feel a sense of moral responsibility.
Yes you have worked hard to get where you are and have become rich, But how far will that really get you. Once you can afford a house and car and a decent living, I think any more than that is a waste when people are dying in other parts of the world from lack of food/water or other basic commodities.
Yes the rich people should be able to lead a bit more lavish life style, its human nature to show off and have better things than others.
But there's a point where people should really just say too much and try to help humanity and make the world a better place. Wishful thinking much though eh.
deanhills
Moshkin_Khan wrote:
It'd be nice to think that when people get rich, they feel a sense of moral responsibility.
Yes you have worked hard to get where you are and have become rich, But how far will that really get you. Once you can afford a house and car and a decent living, I think any more than that is a waste when people are dying in other parts of the world from lack of food/water or other basic commodities.
Yes the rich people should be able to lead a bit more lavish life style, its human nature to show off and have better things than others.
But there's a point where people should really just say too much and try to help humanity and make the world a better place. Wishful thinking much though eh.
A lot of people are doing that, but the way you put it is nice. It would be great if our education and sociology can be of the kind where once we've made our wealth, we can cut off and say all of the rest is for those who really need it. Imagine if Gates would make an announcement that he is retaining a percentage and giving all of the rest to humanity for development. I just can't see it happening though. Humans are not great at that.
Bannik
Indi is 100% correct - he is god


but seriously think about it bill gates is rich because WE the people or SOCIETY bought and keep buying his product even though he has made it extremely expensive (Linux is free and basically does everything a windows can) he has monopolized the computer world and lets no one in - games for example if it runs on DX then no other pc then windows can use it so basically all game companies will make DX games because windows is what 90% of the market.

its just stupid he is only getting richer because he is not letting anyone else get richer.

but thinking about all other rich people, they are only rich because we the society have made them rich, how did Microsoft get so rich (we bought windows) the owner of Nike is only rich because we keep buying Nike, football clubs (Europe) like Chelsea are rich because we the fans keep watching the matches and keep paying the ticket fees.

so if you are rich think hard how you got there, sure its hard work for some luck for others but they all used EVERYONE else int the world too get rich so yes they should give a little more back because without us you wouldn't be so rich.

and seriously if you make like 100million every ear what would loosing an extra 10m do? make you poor or live in a slum, will loosing that 10 million make you pray every night so you can have some bread too eat.
no

also imo what happens too those rich buggers (like richard branson rich) when they die? does that money go back too society too help it no it goes too the family who didn't do shit all too get it instead it should partially go too society, if you didnt earn it you cant have it is what i say.
JrMigSeixal
I think this is very relative.
A person can become rich in many ways: earning money in a casino, winning the lottery, by fraud, the work and effort, a prize, inherit ...
So, there I think there are "lawful" and "illegal to earn money.
Hence, what I mean? What should be done fairly and that the distribution of wealth must be made to have mechanisms that allow those who earn money illegally has to justify all their income. That is, what I advocate is a person in this situation should give more to those who did not have any.

Sorry for my bad english Smile
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
but seriously think about it bill gates is rich because WE the people or SOCIETY bought and keep buying his product.
If Bill Gates or Linux or IBM did not make their products, WE the people or SOCIETY would not buy their products. They are making their products so that we can buy them and they can get rich. If anyone else would like to get rich too, they should make products that can make them rich. There is no sin in that. If anyone has any grievances about Gates' products, either they should not buy them, or arrange some rules and regulations that disallow him from getting rich. And then possibly he will stop wanting to be rich. He will only produce enough products for him to reach a certain number of wealth, and then millions of people in the world will no longer be able to buy his products.
Bannik
Quote:
If Bill Gates or Linux or IBM did not make their products, WE the people or SOCIETY would not buy their products. They are making their products so that we can buy them and they can get rich. If anyone else would like to get rich too, they should make products that can make them rich. There is no sin in that. If anyone has any grievances about Gates' products, either they should not buy them, or arrange some rules and regulations that disallow him from getting rich. And then possibly he will stop wanting to be rich. He will only produce enough products for him to reach a certain number of wealth, and then millions of people in the world will no longer be able to buy his products.


see that's the thing we are given no choice BUT too like it, if windows is 90% of the gaming of the market and i am a gamer who loves playing games then i have other option but too buy windows as I could no longer play games (mac and Linux aren't exactly gaming friendly).

same applies for their products. Microsoft office is a must if you are student, office worker etc....so you either get windows or you suffer....

unless Microsoft opens up and lets smaller companies have info on the code of windows (so they can make an alternative that's works with windows software) its always gonna feel like we are being locked in.
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
Quote:
If Bill Gates or Linux or IBM did not make their products, WE the people or SOCIETY would not buy their products. They are making their products so that we can buy them and they can get rich. If anyone else would like to get rich too, they should make products that can make them rich. There is no sin in that. If anyone has any grievances about Gates' products, either they should not buy them, or arrange some rules and regulations that disallow him from getting rich. And then possibly he will stop wanting to be rich. He will only produce enough products for him to reach a certain number of wealth, and then millions of people in the world will no longer be able to buy his products.


see that's the thing we are given no choice BUT too like it, if windows is 90% of the gaming of the market and i am a gamer who loves playing games then i have other option but too buy windows as I could no longer play games (mac and Linux aren't exactly gaming friendly).

same applies for their products. Microsoft office is a must if you are student, office worker etc....so you either get windows or you suffer....

unless Microsoft opens up and lets smaller companies have info on the code of windows (so they can make an alternative that's works with windows software) its always gonna feel like we are being locked in.
Agreed, except we do have a choice, we can stop buying Microsoft products and suffer as a consequence. I'm still completely tickled that no one else has managed to trump Microsoft yet in a meaningful way. Remember when the desktops first came out and IBM was in the lead and both IBM dethroned and Apple trumped. IBM was a GIANT then and that is more than 20 years ago. So how come nobody has dethroned Microsoft yet? Twisted Evil
Hogwarts
Bannik wrote:
see that's the thing we are given no choice BUT too like it, if windows is 90% of the gaming of the market and i am a gamer who loves playing games then i have other option but too buy windows as I could no longer play games (mac and Linux aren't exactly gaming friendly).

same applies for their products. Microsoft office is a must if you are student, office worker etc....so you either get windows or you suffer....

unless Microsoft opens up and lets smaller companies have info on the code of windows (so they can make an alternative that's works with windows software) its always gonna feel like we are being locked in.


Could always, I don't know, buy a playstation? Rolling Eyes

You seem to make the assumption that games can only be played upon a computer, to which I reply "What? O_o"

Also, did you know you can't play games made for the playstation on a gameboy? Yes, I'm aware. Wow. OHMYGOD, YOU DEMONIC COMPANY, SONY! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!

*calms down, moderately*

Bannik wrote:
same applies for their products. Microsoft office is a must if you are student, office worker etc....so you either get windows or you suffer....

What? I use both Google Documents and OpenOffice.org, and guess what? I'm not suffering. At all. You've got yourself into a narrow mindset that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't see Microsoft managing to 'finish off' either OpenOffice or Google Docs; indeed, both of these are impeding upon one of Microsoft's flagship products. Just because a large amount of the market uses Microsoft Office doesn't mean that it's all you can use Sad

Anyhow, we're getting off-topic. If you want to talk about this further, do so here Sad
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
What? I use both Google Documents and OpenOffice.org, and guess what? I'm not suffering. At all.
You obviously have a choice, and lucky you. We don't. Besides which Microsoft Word is that much better than the OpenOffice equivalent. OpenOffice will have to become commercial in order to provide expert, specialist and dedicated users of word processing software a viable competitive product. They also cannot beat Excel or PowerPoint and the way that all of the family in Microsoft Office are seamlessly integrated. I still can't believe that someone has not dethroned Microsoft yet, but to do it, they would have to invest a few billion dollars in terms of savvy marketing and manipulation of the markets with an expert product that is that much better than Microsoft as people won't change for just almost as good or marginally better, it would have to be significantly improved.
Insanity
I agree with others that it should be looked up to and commended, but giving away your own hard earned money should not be required. But then again you have to look at how the rich got their money; lots of time they made it by screwing with the consumers, or the people near the bottom. Many times, people get rich simply by ripping off the poor with their monopolies or inflated prices. These people should have to give their money to the poor. Even those who earned their money the legitimate way should pay back some money, because they didn't get to the top by themselves.
Hogwarts
deanhills wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
What? I use both Google Documents and OpenOffice.org, and guess what? I'm not suffering. At all.
You obviously have a choice, and lucky you. We don't. Besides which Microsoft Word is that much better than the OpenOffice equivalent. OpenOffice will have to become commercial in order to provide expert, specialist and dedicated users of word processing software a viable competitive product.


Dual-booting, I find OpenOffice much better than Microsoft Office. Perhaps that's a simple opinion on your behalf Rolling Eyes

And as long as you think it's better, of course you're going to use it. You should be using what you think is best. Stop complaining that you prefer something over other things and subsequently don't want to consider the alternatives available.
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
What? I use both Google Documents and OpenOffice.org, and guess what? I'm not suffering. At all.
You obviously have a choice, and lucky you. We don't. Besides which Microsoft Word is that much better than the OpenOffice equivalent. OpenOffice will have to become commercial in order to provide expert, specialist and dedicated users of word processing software a viable competitive product.


Dual-booting, I find OpenOffice much better than Microsoft Office. Perhaps that's a simple opinion on your behalf Rolling Eyes

And as long as you think it's better, of course you're going to use it. You should be using what you think is best. Stop complaining that you prefer something over other things and subsequently don't want to consider the alternatives available.
That's not what we have been complaining about. We have been complaining that Microsoft has a monopoly in these products, and is basically calling the shots. It has become much too big with too many rules and regulations about products and licensing, like BIG Government. We need a change.
Indi
Hogwarts wrote:
And yet, you're implying that everybody "deserves" to have equal wealth. Would there be any need for competition in a market if everybody was paid similar amounts of money? Probably not. And then we have a large amount of market failure occurring as nobody gives a damn about anything. Yes, there won't be a need to borrow, because nobody would be willing to found new companies to compete with the existing ones!

... Oh, is that what i'm "implying"?

Tell me, did i "imply" that when you asked me to explain when a person should be allowed to earn more wealth, and i answered: "What explanation is needed? They should be allowed to be richer if they've managed to get richer."?

Or, maybe i "implied" that when i said: "i am not saying we should go Communist - that is ridiculous. Yes, people should be allowed to earn more than their neighbours by making better products or providing better services."

Or, you know, maybe i "implied" it in one of the dozens of times that i said that people should be allowed to earn more than their neighbours, and that there was nothing wrong with that (just search page 5 for all the times i said "fine" or "of course").

You know, if you're not going to bother reading my argument there's really not much need for me to be here. If you're going to persist in making up your own silly argument to rebut yourself, i'll just ask that you stop putting it in my mouth.

If you are interested in my argument, i have not been vague about it. i have been quite clear. i wouldn't have thought it necessary to repeat it point by point, but if you still think i'm talking about communism, then clearly it is. So here goes:

No one deserves wealth. Any wealth. That is not the same as "no one deserves more wealth than anyone else", that is "no one deserves any wealth". Period. Wealth is not a right. It is a privilege. In exchange for the privilege of owning a larger than average chunk of society's wealth, rich people have to pay more than poor people to support the society. This is accomplished by means of taxing the rich higher than the poor are taxed. The net result of this is that the rich are still rich... just not as rich, and the poor are still poor, just not as poor. Follow? The net result is that the gap between rich and poor is smaller. How much smaller? As small as it has to be to ensure that the poorest people in society are not suffering by any reasonable standard.

In a society with lots of wealth, that gap will still be huge, because there will be enough wealth to support everyone comfortably, with plenty left over to allow a few of the more industrious (or lucky) ones to get really, really rich. In a society with very little wealth, the gap will be small, because once everyone is given the minimum standard of living, there won't be a lot left over to make people rich. But the alternative is to let people suffer needlessly, which is immoral.

Hogwarts wrote:
Indi wrote:
What would happen is rather than having monolithic titans lending out money, you would have co-ops lending out money. People that don't have any use for all of their money would pool it with others, and lend it at interest.


And we have a circular argument again. Say several invest their money/time, make more money, and .. then what? They have above average wealth in society and have to give it out again? Or does society return to as it currently is and invalidate this foolishly "utopic" idea?

i hope this is the last time i have to repeat this same point: they do not have to "give it out again". If they have more wealth than average, then they pay more taxes than average. So they do give back a chunk of the extra wealth they have but... and please, try and grasp this: NOT ALL OF IT. Got it now? It's basic math. If the average wealth is $10, and someone has earned $20, the tax rate should be set at, say, 30%, so that they pay $6 tax, leaving them with $14, SO THEY'RE STILL RICHER THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON. Just $4 richer instead of $10.

Do the math. Figure it out for yourself. Seriously. Just sit down and crunch the numbers. Assign random numbers to a group of people, and crunch the damn numbers. If you actually try to work it out... it really does work.
Hogwarts
Firstly, I'd like to point out that your example is stupid.

You start it by implying (yes, that word again!) that the average wealth is $10. Therefore, assume everybody has $10. Now, if this person who earned $20 (-30%) just gained $14 of wealth, they're now on $24! A difference of 14! SO THEY'RE STILL RICHER THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON. Which is fair, given that they earned that money. 30% tax, as long as it is consistent and static throughout each and every person's earnings is fine. Variable tax rates, which have been one of my points (as they exist in many, at least, Western societies), are much more different. Seriously, just sit down and crunch the numbers Rolling Eyes

Consider the situation that two people are on the same wage. $0.50/hour. It's the minimum wage in the country. However, the point of divergence is the number of hours they work. Person A works 40 hours per week. Person B works 20 hours per week. Subsequently, person A earns $20 and person B earns $10. By the end of the year, person A has earned $1040 and person B has earned $520. Person A, because their wage is in the $1000-$1250 range, has to pay more tax than person B. Say, an average tax of 40%. Person B, because their wage is in the $500-750 tier, has to pay only an average tax of 25%.

Person A earns $624, whilst person B earns $390 -- or a ratio of 1:0.625 -- however, Person A spent 2:1 time working on it. The only exception I can think of where this is unfair is inheritance, in which there should be a fairly significant (flat) tax. Aside from that, I can't why person A should pay a higher rate of taxes than person B.
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
Aside from that, I can't why person A should pay a higher rate of taxes than person B.
Government needs this money. If everyone has to pay the same taxes, those at the bottom of the ladder won't be able to pay their taxes. So the Government takes less from the poor, otherwise they probably will have to bail them out in welfare and all kinds of other programmes, and more from those who can afford to pay taxes, the wealthy.
Hogwarts
deanhills wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
Aside from that, I can't why person A should pay a higher rate of taxes than person B.
Government needs this money. If everyone has to pay the same taxes, those at the bottom of the ladder won't be able to pay their taxes. So the Government takes less from the poor, otherwise they probably will have to bail them out in welfare and all kinds of other programmes, and more from those who can afford to pay taxes, the wealthy.

I'm not saying the same taxes, I'm saying the same percentage to taxes -- or did you not read my post? Rolling Eyes
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
Aside from that, I can't why person A should pay a higher rate of taxes than person B.
Government needs this money. If everyone has to pay the same taxes, those at the bottom of the ladder won't be able to pay their taxes. So the Government takes less from the poor, otherwise they probably will have to bail them out in welfare and all kinds of other programmes, and more from those who can afford to pay taxes, the wealthy.

I'm not saying the same taxes, I'm saying the same percentage to taxes -- or did you not read my post? Rolling Eyes
I thought the wealthy is currently paying the better part of taxes to the Government, so automatically assumed that if they were to be "fairly" taxed, that the portion that they are paying less would have to come from the other tax payers including the ones at the bottom and who are poor. Even if that is percentage wise, those at the bottom will still have to pay taxes they cannot afford. Unless a rule can be made that those at a certain level of earnings will not have to pay any taxes, and only those over that level share taxes percentage wise.
Hogwarts
Because the concept of a minimum wage doesn't exist, does it? Give them a minimum wage. 30% taxes on every person's salary. Where's the problem?
natilovesmike
I kind of agree with you, I think rich people can do whatever they want with their money, I do not think there should be a law that says they need to give away some for charity. But, I would probably only be friends with the kind of rich people that is more charitable, not that any rich person would care to be my friend or care what I think about them...but I wouldn't have a high esteem for the ones who don't know how to share.
malcolmpreen
Personally... no way

People who have inherited money might feel an obligation.... but those who have earned it certainly shouldn't "have to",

Some people obviously chose to (I guess it makes them feel good).... of course high earners are taxed more...

My opinion is that it is bad enough that the scroungers of society do nothing.... and get hand outs...

Malcolm
goutha
Absolutly!

Rich people should give away their money. If one million dollars is enough for you to live for one year, and you earn 5 millions, shy not giving a portion of this money to charity and poor people that you personnaly know!

I heard a story of a rich guy that was living on 1/3 of what he earns, reinvesting 1/3, and giving away 1/3. I think that it's amazing to act this way!
Related topics
do you think free download of mp3s should be legal or not?
is love dying?
New Design Opinons Please?
Gaming Experience Give Away! (Xbox Contest with prizes...)
A rant on God, religion and morality
Give Away of the Day
Money, and who should have it.
Should Obama and Dems Limit Charitable Giving?
Adding more Value to Fri$
Morality of Wealth
Ethics/Morality of Health Care
OMG coins!
Left-wing Nut Shoots up Discovery Channel Offices
Let's give away money
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.