That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried?
I can do that too! Check it out.
Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.
Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.
Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.
Strawman. Tangible goods doesn't equate to crap from Wal-Mart. It's also being able to afford health care, being able to afford a house or being able to rent an apartment not next to the highway, being able to send your kids to college so they're not buried under tons of student loans, etc.
The above sounds like a moral argument.At what point do I, in earning a ton of money, become obligated to do what's best for the country? I'm skeptical that there is such a point - especially with how "globalized" business is.
If you're not arguing from a moral basis, then what basis are you arguing from? Legally speaking, you become "obligated" as soon as someone creates a law saying that it's legal to tax you said amount.
Again, if someone knew the answer to the question above, they'd be hired to run the world.
That stands somewhat at odds with this statement:
The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.
Why is society obliged to protect Bill Gates? Why is it all of our responsibility to keep Canada from invading Redmond and taking his company over? Why should society only be a benefit and not a responsibility?
Because he's an American citizen and pays his taxes.
So if we redistribute rich peoples wealth to the masses people are going to use that money on healthcare, small business startups and infrastructure? Really?Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried?
I can do that too! Check it out.
You've lost me. I thought we were talking about wealth inequality, not outsourcing.Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.
Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.
Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.
True, but I guess my point was that there is no moral obligation. You might disagree, but I just don't see it.
And because there's no moral obligation to re-invest or re-dsitribute what you've ac ulated, I don't see any contradiction.
Just sell heroin. Problem solved. Strawman.
It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island and don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.
Huh? What I was implying was that the rich are under no obligation to use thier money in ways that help the country. It was a response to your "rich people engage in speculation" argument. Is speculation illegal? Is making certain, potentially destructive investments, like short sales, illegal? Explain how that is in any way the same as selling the smack you've obviously been smoking?
Learn what context is.
Are you talking about legal or moral obligation? Legally speaking, he's obligated if the law says he is.
Morally speaking, I don't think he's obligated. But (hypothetically speaking) if it's better for the citizens of the nation overall, you can't fault the citizens for trying to enact that.
The founders of Google are very weathy -- unfairly so (just kidding). Do they have any employees at Google? Do those employees buy tangible goods?
Once again, why is society only a benefit and not a responsibility?
Yes, it was a strawman. Unless you believe that everyone on the good side of that income/wealth gap got there by doing something illegal.
It's as valid as your point that they'd only spent it on junk food and video games.
I'm sure it would go to an equal amount of good and bad things.
I thought we had transitioned to effective use of monetary resources.
I think I was speaking of a general obligation and not making a distinction between moral and legal ones.
Legally, I think he's obligated to pay the taxable rate. I don't there's a moral one here. And while I can't fault citizens from trying to impose one, I can't blame the rich for trying to fight that.
Why would it be a responsibility?
I pay for the benefits I receive when I do my taxes. Where's the responsibility come from?
Are you still claiming the rich-poor gap = heroin addiction?
By the way, I engage in speculation and I'm not a billionaire. Sometimes, investments are a better place to put your money than a piece of consumer electronics that is obsolete in two years.
Then you pretty much lie where I lie. I don't think it's immoral to want to keep as much money as you can for your own use. I also don't think it's immoral for citizens to want their nation to continue functioning effectively (which I think an extreme inequality gap would hinder.)
My beef with this is that it can be spun very anti-meritocratically.
I don't shed tears for millionaires, especially those that out-source. If they farm out their business to other nations in order to make more cash, knowing that fellow citizens will lose out on jobs, that's their right. I don't think they have a right to complain though when said citizens ask that they share more of the tax burden. Again, if they disagree, they can do what other citizens do: bug their legislature to get the laws changed. And due to their high status, there's a good chance they'll be succesful.
Again, how many middle-class Senators are there? Democracy in today's America goes hand in hand with aristocracy.
You really don't if you're buying off politicians to allow you to play both sides of the fence.
I never said that.Are you still claiming the rich-poor gap = heroin addiction?
True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one? It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money. What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?
I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Cons ution or the tax code?
...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote