5 ms·

Not to say I disagree because I do think the wealthiest should contribute meaningfully to society. But when you say "without visible contributions to society."

Not to say I disagree because I do think the wealthiest should contribute meaningfully to society. But when you say "without visible contributions to society." why should an extremely wealthy person have to contribute to society?

aalleavitch 9y ago
Why should anyone have to contribute to society? Because they benefit from it.
- notyourwork 9y ago
  That's a good point - the wealthiest are wealthy because they rely on the economy to continue functioning.
coliveira 9y ago
People who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.
- notyourwork 9y ago
  I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing? Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back. Are these not contributions? Or are you suggesting that the wealthiest are parasites simply because they should contribute more to society than someone less financially well off?
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    If you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks? Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?
    - notyourwork 9y ago
      Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. So in a global economy I'm not sure your argument is technically justified and simply the righteous argument most people would accept as true. If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though? I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her. I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. No one said that it was, and it isn’t illegal to be a parasite. As to the rest, life is a competition.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute. Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical. I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. That's the problem.
    - oreo81 9y ago
      I see it as the exact opposite.
      - justicezyx 9y ago
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they are rich. If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. It's not only reasonable to expect them to invest more proportionally in the continued functioning of society: it's in their best interest if they're smart enough to look past their balance sheet at the end of the year.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    > If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. If history says anything, it's that humans only see this when the structure collapse, not when it's still working. And to be harsh and potentially thought as rude: all you have been saying is a dream, a dream of impractical theorist.
  - dclowd9901 9y ago
    They only invest in those things that prop them up. Like donating to police or lawmakers, or the very poor with next to nothing to lose (and thus the most dangerous).
  - cornholio 9y ago
    That's a clearly defective model from a game theoretical point of view. A certain rich person can do very little to preserve the stability of the society, so their actions would be concentrated on things that give them direct benefits, that may or may not help society. It's essentially an externality problem, everybody is marginally hurt by say pollution, but some have local gains that far outweigh the costs, motivating them to pollute, bribe politicians and regulators, skirt taxes and so on, leaving other rich or poor people to support the welfare of the society. When the scales tip in favor of the freeriders, you have a failed state that no rich profiteer could have prevented, working individually.
    - aalleavitch 9y ago
      Working individually, yes. But realistically this is more of an iterative prisoner's dilemma than a straight prisoner's dilemma. If the rich don't hold up their part of the social contract, the poor tend to eat them (eventually). So the rich are only incentivized to screw the system if they can get away with it. The problems start happening when we let them get away with it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> why should an extremely wealthy person have to contribute to society? If influence, specifically political influence, and wealth could be perfectly decoupled, no reason. That nexus, however, means an oligarchical class of rich idiots have the capability to project their stupidity onto national policy.
- malandrew 9y ago
  Poor idiots collectively have the capability to project their stupidity onto national policy as well. Maybe we should reduce the size and scope of national policy to minimize the impact of idiots, rich or poor.
- ouid 9y ago
  Even if they aren't projecting their stupidity, they're certainly projecting their interests. There's nothing preventing their interests from being at odds with society's interests.
collyw 9y ago
When you earn trillions in isn't through the sweat off your own back. Its other people earning it for you.
mbrameld 9y ago
If a wealthy person earns their wealth, then they have benefitted from their contribution to society. If they are allowed to lock that wealth up multigenerationally, then they are incentivized to change the system to make it harder for others to do what they themselves have done, to the benefit of others who have also already taken advantage. Society as a whole benefits much more when each generation has to earn the bulk of their wealth.
wvenable 9y ago
At minimum, a wealthy person should at least buy stuff -- that would actually be a contribution to society. But the super-wealthy have more money than they can possibly spend!

aalleavitch 9y ago

Why should anyone have to contribute to society? Because they benefit from it.

notyourwork 9y ago
That's a good point - the wealthiest are wealthy because they rely on the economy to continue functioning.

coliveira 9y ago

People who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.

notyourwork 9y ago
I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing? Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back. Are these not contributions? Or are you suggesting that the wealthiest are parasites simply because they should contribute more to society than someone less financially well off?
- QAPereo 9y ago
  If you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks? Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?
  - notyourwork 9y ago
    Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. So in a global economy I'm not sure your argument is technically justified and simply the righteous argument most people would accept as true. If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though? I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her. I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. No one said that it was, and it isn’t illegal to be a parasite. As to the rest, life is a competition.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute. Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical. I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. That's the problem.
  - oreo81 9y ago
    I see it as the exact opposite.
    - justicezyx 9y ago
aalleavitch 9y ago
You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they are rich. If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. It's not only reasonable to expect them to invest more proportionally in the continued functioning of society: it's in their best interest if they're smart enough to look past their balance sheet at the end of the year.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  > If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. If history says anything, it's that humans only see this when the structure collapse, not when it's still working. And to be harsh and potentially thought as rude: all you have been saying is a dream, a dream of impractical theorist.
- dclowd9901 9y ago
  They only invest in those things that prop them up. Like donating to police or lawmakers, or the very poor with next to nothing to lose (and thus the most dangerous).
- cornholio 9y ago
  That's a clearly defective model from a game theoretical point of view. A certain rich person can do very little to preserve the stability of the society, so their actions would be concentrated on things that give them direct benefits, that may or may not help society. It's essentially an externality problem, everybody is marginally hurt by say pollution, but some have local gains that far outweigh the costs, motivating them to pollute, bribe politicians and regulators, skirt taxes and so on, leaving other rich or poor people to support the welfare of the society. When the scales tip in favor of the freeriders, you have a failed state that no rich profiteer could have prevented, working individually.
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    Working individually, yes. But realistically this is more of an iterative prisoner's dilemma than a straight prisoner's dilemma. If the rich don't hold up their part of the social contract, the poor tend to eat them (eventually). So the rich are only incentivized to screw the system if they can get away with it. The problems start happening when we let them get away with it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> why should an extremely wealthy person have to contribute to society? If influence, specifically political influence, and wealth could be perfectly decoupled, no reason. That nexus, however, means an oligarchical class of rich idiots have the capability to project their stupidity onto national policy.

malandrew 9y ago
Poor idiots collectively have the capability to project their stupidity onto national policy as well. Maybe we should reduce the size and scope of national policy to minimize the impact of idiots, rich or poor.
ouid 9y ago
Even if they aren't projecting their stupidity, they're certainly projecting their interests. There's nothing preventing their interests from being at odds with society's interests.

collyw 9y ago

When you earn trillions in isn't through the sweat off your own back. Its other people earning it for you.

mbrameld 9y ago

If a wealthy person earns their wealth, then they have benefitted from their contribution to society. If they are allowed to lock that wealth up multigenerationally, then they are incentivized to change the system to make it harder for others to do what they themselves have done, to the benefit of others who have also already taken advantage. Society as a whole benefits much more when each generation has to earn the bulk of their wealth.

wvenable 9y ago

At minimum, a wealthy person should at least buy stuff -- that would actually be a contribution to society. But the super-wealthy have more money than they can possibly spend!