4 ms·

That's a pretty pessimistic take. You could just as easily say that we as a "Great" nation and society decide that we will not allow our poor and underprivileg

That's a pretty pessimistic take. You could just as easily say that we as a "Great" nation and society decide that we will not allow our poor and underprivileged to be impoverished so that a few billionaires can die with a little more in their pile. It's not a demand of the proletariat, it's the middle and upper class deciding that they want a more egalitarian society because it has a higher utility.

datatan 9y ago
No that's just hyperbole without any basis in reality. Those poor and underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed. Poor people in the USA aren't even poor by world wide standards. You do not have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul.
- falcolas 9y ago
  > underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed Mostly via the government, through food stamps, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc. So the precedent is already there, and already consumes somewhere near 2/3 of your taxes today. Charity provides comparatively little for your average poverty stricken family. If Paul got his wealth off the back of Peter and the government they both keep in power, is it theft to want Paul to help Peter when he can no longer work?
- arrosenberg 9y ago
  It's absurd to say that "because there are poorer people in (I'm assuming you are referring to) Asia/Africa/Central America, we should make no further effort to help". We should help them because they are our neighbors and it's our moral imperative. It's not robbery, it's the cost of being part of society. Those billionaires rely on the laws, created and enforced by the government, to maintain their status and possessions. If it's a government of and for all the people in the country, then the government absolutely has moral authority to tax citizens relative to their ability to contribute, and to aid citizens relative to their need for aid.
moduspol 9y ago
I sure hope those billionaires agree with you, because they're under no obligation to stay while the rest of you decide how much more of their assets to take. I mean, I hope you're right. Because if not, this kind of policy is basically sprinting toward having a society of people with no market-useful skills and a strong sense of entitlement. That may be egalitarian, but it doesn't sound like a "higher utility" to me.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Those billionares wouldn't be billionares without taking advantage of the infrastructure and support of the country they made their money in. So they've already taken from you - from your taxes. This is their opportunity to repay their governments for those advantages.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    This in no way addresses my points.

datatan 9y ago

No that's just hyperbole without any basis in reality. Those poor and underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed. Poor people in the USA aren't even poor by world wide standards. You do not have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul.

falcolas 9y ago
> underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed Mostly via the government, through food stamps, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc. So the precedent is already there, and already consumes somewhere near 2/3 of your taxes today. Charity provides comparatively little for your average poverty stricken family. If Paul got his wealth off the back of Peter and the government they both keep in power, is it theft to want Paul to help Peter when he can no longer work?
arrosenberg 9y ago
It's absurd to say that "because there are poorer people in (I'm assuming you are referring to) Asia/Africa/Central America, we should make no further effort to help". We should help them because they are our neighbors and it's our moral imperative. It's not robbery, it's the cost of being part of society. Those billionaires rely on the laws, created and enforced by the government, to maintain their status and possessions. If it's a government of and for all the people in the country, then the government absolutely has moral authority to tax citizens relative to their ability to contribute, and to aid citizens relative to their need for aid.

moduspol 9y ago

I sure hope those billionaires agree with you, because they're under no obligation to stay while the rest of you decide how much more of their assets to take. I mean, I hope you're right. Because if not, this kind of policy is basically sprinting toward having a society of people with no market-useful skills and a strong sense of entitlement. That may be egalitarian, but it doesn't sound like a "higher utility" to me.

falcolas 9y ago
Those billionares wouldn't be billionares without taking advantage of the infrastructure and support of the country they made their money in. So they've already taken from you - from your taxes. This is their opportunity to repay their governments for those advantages.
- moduspol 9y ago
  This in no way addresses my points.