3 ms·

Do trust-fundies bug you the same way? Granted, someone put up capital that came from somewhere to seed their lifestyle, but they're quite literally living off

by _jal 7y ago

Do trust-fundies bug you the same way? Granted, someone put up capital that came from somewhere to seed their lifestyle, but they're quite literally living off others' labor, too. Putting that aside, a lot of folks seems far more attuned to 'cheating' at the very bottom of society than the (much more damaging) cheating elsewhere. Is someone eating almost-expired grocery store waste a bigger imposition on others than fraud? Tax evasion?

tathougies 7y ago
> Do trust-fundies bug you the same way? Granted, someone put up capital that came from somewhere to seed their lifestyle, but they're quite literally living off others' labor, too. No, because they're supposed to be living off of daddy and mummy's labor, not mine. You see, trust fund kids have a trust fund, but the people who provided that money (mom and dad) typically have a lot of say in how its used. It's the same principle here. If a trust fundie went to a public soup kitchen, then yes I want a say, because that's my money. Otherwise, no I don't really care that someone gave someone else money. Not my business. If the 'wild' guy in the comment found an independent patron to provide him everything he needed, I'd say go for it -- that's a great business to be in honestl. > Putting that aside, a lot of folks seems far more attuned to 'cheating' at the very bottom of society than the (much more damaging) cheating elsewhere. That's not true at all. You just haven't made a proper comparison. Trust fund kids aren't stealing anything from me. That money is not mine. It was their ancestor's and now it's theirs. If they were taking my money then that would be unfair. > Is someone eating almost-expired grocery store waste a bigger imposition on others than fraud? I have no idea how this relates > Tax evasion? Tax evasion -- not paying taxes that are owed -- is against the law, and ought to be prosecuted, including with jail time. I don't think that my country (America) typically goes easy on those who flout tax law, but in general, I support law enforcement universally, and I would support cracking down on those breaking tax law and building more jails to house them.
- GuiA 7y ago
  > If a trust fundie went to a public soup kitchen, then yes I want a say, because that's my money. Soup kitchens are funded with private donations more often than not these days.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  >I don't think that my country (America) typically goes easy on those who flout tax law, but in general, I support law enforcement universally, and I would support cracking down on those breaking tax law and building more jails to house them. Again the poor are scrutinized more in this area than the rich. The rich move their money offshore and use expensive lawyers and social connections to make this happen. Insisting on locking up poor people for tax evasion is a terrible idea, most of them don't owe much tax anyway. It would cost you more of your money to lock them up than it saves. Once society really starts to go after the rich for tax evasion, then arguments like yours might become more credible, but even then I'd never be in favour of locking up poor people for unpaid taxes. It's disproportionate and counterproductive. Sometimes people are going to cheat, and it won't seem fair. It's not worth disturbing your peace of mind over it.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Again the poor are scrutinized more in this area than the rich. The rich move their money offshore and use expensive lawyers and social connections to make this happen Source? For a long time the irs didn't investigate taxes for discrepancies under a few hundred thousand which seems to favor the poor. The 'tax evasion' you cite is (moving money) is legal. It is not tax evasion. No one, rich or poor, should be punished for doing something legal at the time they did it. Congress should change their laws
koheripbal 7y ago
They bother me, but less because the person they are living off of gave their specific consent for that money to be used that way. ...whereas no one ever asked us if we should fund the lifestyle of those who are voluntarily homeless. There is a world of difference between giving your nest egg to your kids when you die, and living off of the state.
- _jal 7y ago
  OK, thanks. But this confuses something: we're not talking about me giving money to my kid, we're talking about my hypothetical kid. My choices can't tell us anything about the moral character of my kid. I submit that the kid and the voluntarily impecunious are morally identical - neither is personally adding any value, they're exploiting arrangements neither of them made to continue their lifestyle while producing nothing. Also, food banks != the state. The one I volunteer at is a church distributing food that's nearly expired, donated by stores who would have tossed it otherwise. It appears win-win-win to me and is taking nothing from you. Do you have a problem with that?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Also, food banks != the state. The donations are typically given with the understanding they are helping those in need, not those who want to be in need. > The one I volunteer at is a church distributing food that's nearly expired, donated by stores who would have tossed it otherwise. It appears win-win-win to me and is taking nothing from you. Do you have a problem with that? Then why doesn't they guy simply to go to the store and offer to take their almost expired food? My guess is that they wouldn't give it to him because they'd want him to pay. The food is given to food banks for those in need. Someone not really in need taking it lowers the amount available for those truly in need, artificially signals to donators that more food is needed, and violates the consent of those giving the food for the truly destitute.
205guy 7y ago
That the state spends money to help the destitute and that some of those might be not-quite-destitute and therefore by some logic defrauding the state really seems to irk people in ways that always surprise me. As you say, why focus on the pennies involved when waste in the military (at least in the US) and other fraud against the government (such as Medicare fraud) is magnitudes more? The main defender of this point would've been better off taking the money earned during the time writing his comment, donating it to a shelter (because a lot of charity is not government funded), and never thinking about the issue again. Yet you can just see how it gets under his skin.
- tathougies 7y ago
  You mention various other free loaders as if I don't think they deserve condemnation as well. However, I'm not going to hijack a thread about some homeless-by-choice bum to talk about that, because I like to stay on-topic.

by _jal 7y ago

tathougies 7y ago

> Do trust-fundies bug you the same way? Granted, someone put up capital that came from somewhere to seed their lifestyle, but they're quite literally living off others' labor, too. No, because they're supposed to be living off of daddy and mummy's labor, not mine. You see, trust fund kids have a trust fund, but the people who provided that money (mom and dad) typically have a lot of say in how its used. It's the same principle here. If a trust fundie went to a public soup kitchen, then yes I want a say, because that's my money. Otherwise, no I don't really care that someone gave someone else money. Not my business. If the 'wild' guy in the comment found an independent patron to provide him everything he needed, I'd say go for it -- that's a great business to be in honestl. > Putting that aside, a lot of folks seems far more attuned to 'cheating' at the very bottom of society than the (much more damaging) cheating elsewhere. That's not true at all. You just haven't made a proper comparison. Trust fund kids aren't stealing anything from me. That money is not mine. It was their ancestor's and now it's theirs. If they were taking my money then that would be unfair. > Is someone eating almost-expired grocery store waste a bigger imposition on others than fraud? I have no idea how this relates > Tax evasion? Tax evasion -- not paying taxes that are owed -- is against the law, and ought to be prosecuted, including with jail time. I don't think that my country (America) typically goes easy on those who flout tax law, but in general, I support law enforcement universally, and I would support cracking down on those breaking tax law and building more jails to house them.

GuiA 7y ago
> If a trust fundie went to a public soup kitchen, then yes I want a say, because that's my money. Soup kitchens are funded with private donations more often than not these days.
gerbilly 7y ago
>I don't think that my country (America) typically goes easy on those who flout tax law, but in general, I support law enforcement universally, and I would support cracking down on those breaking tax law and building more jails to house them. Again the poor are scrutinized more in this area than the rich. The rich move their money offshore and use expensive lawyers and social connections to make this happen. Insisting on locking up poor people for tax evasion is a terrible idea, most of them don't owe much tax anyway. It would cost you more of your money to lock them up than it saves. Once society really starts to go after the rich for tax evasion, then arguments like yours might become more credible, but even then I'd never be in favour of locking up poor people for unpaid taxes. It's disproportionate and counterproductive. Sometimes people are going to cheat, and it won't seem fair. It's not worth disturbing your peace of mind over it.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Again the poor are scrutinized more in this area than the rich. The rich move their money offshore and use expensive lawyers and social connections to make this happen Source? For a long time the irs didn't investigate taxes for discrepancies under a few hundred thousand which seems to favor the poor. The 'tax evasion' you cite is (moving money) is legal. It is not tax evasion. No one, rich or poor, should be punished for doing something legal at the time they did it. Congress should change their laws

koheripbal 7y ago

They bother me, but less because the person they are living off of gave their specific consent for that money to be used that way. ...whereas no one ever asked us if we should fund the lifestyle of those who are voluntarily homeless. There is a world of difference between giving your nest egg to your kids when you die, and living off of the state.

_jal 7y ago
OK, thanks. But this confuses something: we're not talking about me giving money to my kid, we're talking about my hypothetical kid. My choices can't tell us anything about the moral character of my kid. I submit that the kid and the voluntarily impecunious are morally identical - neither is personally adding any value, they're exploiting arrangements neither of them made to continue their lifestyle while producing nothing. Also, food banks != the state. The one I volunteer at is a church distributing food that's nearly expired, donated by stores who would have tossed it otherwise. It appears win-win-win to me and is taking nothing from you. Do you have a problem with that?
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Also, food banks != the state. The donations are typically given with the understanding they are helping those in need, not those who want to be in need. > The one I volunteer at is a church distributing food that's nearly expired, donated by stores who would have tossed it otherwise. It appears win-win-win to me and is taking nothing from you. Do you have a problem with that? Then why doesn't they guy simply to go to the store and offer to take their almost expired food? My guess is that they wouldn't give it to him because they'd want him to pay. The food is given to food banks for those in need. Someone not really in need taking it lowers the amount available for those truly in need, artificially signals to donators that more food is needed, and violates the consent of those giving the food for the truly destitute.

205guy 7y ago

That the state spends money to help the destitute and that some of those might be not-quite-destitute and therefore by some logic defrauding the state really seems to irk people in ways that always surprise me. As you say, why focus on the pennies involved when waste in the military (at least in the US) and other fraud against the government (such as Medicare fraud) is magnitudes more? The main defender of this point would've been better off taking the money earned during the time writing his comment, donating it to a shelter (because a lot of charity is not government funded), and never thinking about the issue again. Yet you can just see how it gets under his skin.

tathougies 7y ago
You mention various other free loaders as if I don't think they deserve condemnation as well. However, I'm not going to hijack a thread about some homeless-by-choice bum to talk about that, because I like to stay on-topic.