too rich?

[TaraJo]

You think giving away 50% or more of your wealth is comparable with reducing a few percentage points of income tax? Get real. This whole "the rich are all miserable bastards who don't actually care about people like I do" attitude stinks.

Yes, we get it. Some rich people are total dickheads. Guess what? Some middle class and lower class people are total dickheads too. The existence of dickheads in your respective class does not suddenly mean your entire class is made of dickheads.

Big problem here is that the economic system we have now actually encourages rich people, espcially big corporations, to behave in ways that are less than ethical.

You have two companies that both build blenders. All other things about them are the same except that one pays its employees minimum wage and the other uses slave labor. Guess which one is going to have an advantage here? Since the company that uses slaves doesn't have to worry about workplace safety or employee wages, they're going to be able to charge less for their product and drive their competition out of business. It's evolution on a corporate level: We're creating an environment where corruption causes companies to prosper and as a result, corruption is becoming more and more common.

If wealthy people are good, charitable people, I have absolutely no problem with them. What I have a problem with are the ones who polute our environment, use slave labor, get giant government subsidies, buy out government officials (especially congressmen) and destroy lives simply to make an extra buck. What I have a problem with is that supply side economics has made it impossible to regulate any of these companies. What I have a problem with is that, even though corruption helps companies prosper, there are people who want to change the system to make corruption pay off even more instead of trying to hold anyone accountable.

If we change things and start holding the assholes of business accountable, it shouldn't hurt the good guys. At very least, they can afford to take some of those billions they spend on lobbiests and use that to help our tax base.

[Tiberius]

You see, given how economics works, I can't see how you can put all the blame on corporations who use slave labour. Yes, they are bad; that is a problem. However, given that these companies are exposed on a daily basis, the consumers share some of the blame for buying from these companies. Nobody is being forced into buying from the company that uses slave labour; there are companies out there that build stuff and pay their workers well.

This isn't only a problem on the corporate-political level; there is a cultural problem with consumers as well. Most consumers don't give two fucks about whether their products were made by slave labour or not. Until that attitude changes, not much else will.

[TaraJo]

You see, given how economics works, I can't see how you can put all the blame on corporations who use slave labour. Yes, they are bad; that is a problem. However, given that these companies are exposed on a daily basis, the consumers share some of the blame for buying from these companies. Nobody is being forced into buying from the company that uses slave labour; there are companies out there that build stuff and pay their workers well.

This isn't only a problem on the corporate-political level; there is a cultural problem with consumers as well. Most consumers don't give two fucks about whether their products were made by slave labour or not. Until that attitude changes, not much else will.

You're right, that's part of the problem. Right now, though, it's virtually impossible, for example, to buy a lot of products that aren't produced in some third world sweat shop. This is because of corporate evolution: the idea was so profitable that only the companies that used it survived. It's even worse when you're broke. My boyfriend and I both despise Walmart, but we don't have enough money to afford shopping elsewhere. I know we aren't the only ones like that.

[fr0d0]

Power corrupts. Therefore rich people act differently to non rich people.

Same stock. Completely different result.

[Ryantology]

You think giving away 50% or more of your wealth is comparable with reducing a few percentage points of income tax? Get real. This whole "the rich are all miserable bastards who don't actually care about people like I do" attitude stinks.

I used to work at Wal-Mart years ago, and one thing that company loved to do (besides pay us a fraction of what we should have been making and constantly cut hours and benefits while our store posted ever larger profits) was boast loudly of its charitable donations... a significant portion of which was coaxed out of us employees.

Considering the kind of business Wal-Mart runs, it amounts to nothing but PR, and it's an astounding scam, considering that the Walton Family itself has more money than a vast percentage of all Americans and what Wal-Mart donates would barely be a drop in the bucket compared to that wealth. It tastes like used dishwater. Other big-box retailers pull exactly the same stunt.

I will be impressed with rich people donating when they are donating everything they don't need. Not a single person in the world has needs which require millions, or billions of dollars. It is, of course, one's own right to keep as much as they want, but when you're a billionaire, you can afford to donate far more than 50% of your wealth.

[jonb]

It wasn't clear at all. You could have used a number of words to suggest the amount, such as "it would only take 25% of that wealth". By using the word "tax", you are not just suggesting the amount; you are suggesting that it be taken forcibly by the government.

What government? There are national governments, but as far as I know there is no world government, so who am I suggesting forcibly Tax?

Further, you only seem to support this view more when you say (in the same post):

"it is time to make them pay."

Not, "it is time to convince the to pay more", or "it is time to focus on making the rich more philanthropic", but "make them pay". Your use of the word "tax" doesn't appear to be illustrative at all.

I don't think most people do much for others unless there is encouragement. The encouragement could be positive, but it can also be aggressive.

Seriously? You think that the bailout means that banks can never ever fail again? You are the one being daft, my friend.

Where did I say that? I did not!

"why would people who know a system is not going to deliver anything to them support it"

Precisely why I don't agree with a tax hike to sort this problem out. Rich people are humans too; they have the same empathy for the poor as we do. This is why you'll find that most of the top 100 richest people are philanthropic in a number of causes. It is why 91 billionaires have signed the Giving Pledge. Some on that list have pledged to give 99% of their wealth away.

Yes but that is a problem in itself, if you talked to a lot of self made people, they often despise those that have just inherited wealth and presume they have a right to it. These people often set up trusts for there children that will allow the children to be comfortable, but also encourages them not to just sit about on their arses.
The problem with charity is that it taxes people that care about others, but leaves the wealth with those that don't give a dam. As such it is not the few who give anyway that make the problem, it is those that don't.

---

I just want to point to the OXFAM report, we are not talking about the wealth, just part of the yearly income, one quarter of the yearly income of the 100 richest people would end extreme poverty.
I am not even thinking at this stage how it could be done, it is just inequality at that level, rankles me, and it should be thought about, because I think it is divisive, and will of itself lead to problems.

[fr0d0]

I think it is divisive, and will of itself lead to problems.

Past tense

[Tiberius]

I will be impressed with rich people donating when they are donating everything they don't need. Not a single person in the world has needs which require millions, or billions of dollars. It is, of course, one's own right to keep as much as they want, but when you're a billionaire, you can afford to donate far more than 50% of your wealth.

You should read about the Giving Pledge more. A lot of the people who have signed it are pledging to give away 99% of their wealth.

What government? There are national governments, but as far as I know there is no world government, so who am I suggesting forcibly Tax?

Any government. Again, your use of the word "tax" suggests you want government(s) to forcibly take the money from the rich.

I don't think most people do much for others unless there is encouragement. The encouragement could be positive, but it can also be aggressive.

Tax is not aggressive encouragement. It is a form of forced payment. If it was encouragement, people could say "no" to it and wouldn't find themselves in (much) trouble. If you say "no" to tax, you will get prosecuted by the government, or you will have to leave the country. When your two options are "pay up" or "leave the country", it is a forced payment.

Seriously? You think that the bailout means that banks can never ever fail again? You are the one being daft, my friend.

Where did I say that? I did not!

You said: "The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft."

This was in response to me saying setting a precedent of "taxing people when we need money to do something" would lead to the abuse of the precedent, such as bailing out companies that were "too big to fail". To say that the banks have been bailed out, and a change would lead to it is daft, you are suggesting that it could never happen again. It doesn't matter if the banks have been bailed out; they can fail again, and when you set the precedent of "let's tax people more to pay for stuff", there is no reason to think the government wouldn't use an additional tax to bail out the banks again.

If you didn't mean it that way, then please explain why it is "daft".

[jonb]

What government? There are national governments, but as far as I know there is no world government, so who am I suggesting forcibly Tax?

Any government. Again, your use of the word "tax" suggests you want government(s) to forcibly take the money from the rich.

The association is in your own head, which you apply to my writing. An old person could say 'it taxes me to climb these stairs', there is no implication of a government in that statement.

I don't think most people do much for others unless there is encouragement. The encouragement could be positive, but it can also be aggressive.

Tax is not aggressive encouragement. It is a form of forced payment. If it was encouragement, people could say "no" to it and wouldn't find themselves in (much) trouble. If you say "no" to tax, you will get prosecuted by the government, or you will have to leave the country. When your two options are "pay up" or "leave the country", it is a forced payment.

This trait of yours to read into a statement what is in your head, rather than what is on the page, is shown here again. The quote you use does not mention a tax, but your reply is all about governmental tax. What do you want me to do, explain what I have written or what is in your head?

Where did I say that? I did not!

You said: "The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft."

This was in response to me saying setting a precedent of "taxing people when we need money to do something" would lead to the abuse of the precedent, such as bailing out companies that were "too big to fail". To say that the banks have been bailed out, and a change would lead to it is daft, you are suggesting that it could never happen again. It doesn't matter if the banks have been bailed out; they can fail again, and when you set the precedent of "let's tax people more to pay for stuff", there is no reason to think the government wouldn't use an additional tax to bail out the banks again.

If you didn't mean it that way, then please explain why it is "daft".

My accusation of 'daft' was in response to you saying

Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.

In this statement you seem to be saying that a new tax would lead to abuse, I responded by pointing out that, that abuse had already taken place, as such the proposal that a new tax is causal to an abuse is daft.
Governments abusing their control, does not depend on which taxes they impose, to say it does is daft.

Now I am going to be a bit presumptive here, but I feel I should openly state what I am finding in your posts.
Tibs you have a very intense gaze. You can channel your vision onto something and see detail which others find it very hard to see, but in looking at your correspondence I have noticed that you seem to find it hard to differentiate the vision you have from your own preconceptions and these preconceptions are colouring the result you get. This seems to mean you do not look at things with fresh eyes, as such; If you have decided what a thing is you can only see it that way. It seems to me if you could learn to at times re-evaluate your preconceptions, as well as use that intense vision, and differentiate between the two, you would be in a very strong position.

[Mister Agenda]

Any government. Again, your use of the word "tax" suggests you want government(s) to forcibly take the money from the rich.

The association is in your own head, which you apply to my writing. An old person could say 'it taxes me to climb these stairs', there is no implication of a government in that statement.

Would you please clarify in what sense you meant the word 'tax'?

tax   /tæks/ Show Spelled[taks]
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
verb (used with object)
3. (of a government)
a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one's resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal . to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic . to estimate or determine the amount or value of.