4 ms·

The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on dona

The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.

Sporktacular 4y ago
"The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite" This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work. This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies vs others. Other countries produce fewer and then only natural resource millionaires in the favour of the ruling elites. But they can't do so without labour and the resources owned by those societies. The rich owe almost everything not produced by their own hands. And comparing the figures of corruption in those countries to that of charities generally is so absurd it's laughable.
- mulmen 4y ago
  Ostensibly wealth is a settled debt.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    Ostensibly. 'Owe' is more than accounting parlance.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      Is it? This is social accounting. It all translates.
      - Sporktacular 4y ago
        Yeah. Just as wealth is more than accounting parlance.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > They owe their wealth to the workers working for > them. To the education system that educated their > workers and made them productive, the roads that > brought them to work and the health system that > keeps them at work. Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.
  - kqr 4y ago
    Assuming further that the taxes accurately measure the benefit that comes from the interaction of luck, privilege and society. Assuming even further that taxes effectively redistribute wealth to workers, educators, and nurturers. These are together three assumptions, none of which I think are true.
    - closeparen 4y ago
      Taxes are the price we pay for society. Quite! Well, a price never fully captures the value to the buyer of what they're acquiring. Otherwise they'd be worse off for making the exchange. We cooperate because we both gain more than we lose from said cooperation. That's a great and beautiful thing.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    This is a lazy libertarian talking point. When someone accepts come award saying he owes his success to his family/mentor/agent, it's not an IOU for some cash value. But even if it was, how would you quantify whether a tax rate captures the full, less-tangible value of what a society provides? If through lobbying or creative accounting, a billionaire is able to reduce his yearly taxable income to $100 then he's met your definition of fully paid-up, when obviously he 'owes' (in the ethical, non-accounting sense) a lot more. Because society provides more than just economic opportunity, taxes are just one of the things we're required to pay back. We're expected to follow the law or sometimes fight for it (giving up some of our absolute freedoms), to be helpful or follow hundreds of other social conventions. If you insist on reducing all that to a tax rate, then it's so low that it points to a welfare state for the rich.
- closeparen 4y ago
  Indeed, the rich owe society for all these things. The amount they owe is called the price. And the time for which they owe it is from the moment of services rendered until the invoice is paid. Some of them, indeed, weasel out of paying the agreed-upon prices for their inputs. A certain former President comes to mind. But once paid, the debts are clear.
raisedbyninjas 4y ago
Don't go to the dentist. Some of them live lavishly pushing unneeded and overpriced care.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
The rich wouldn't exist without society. They owe far more than the average person. Simply maintaining and storing wealth requires rather complex societal structures; before modern society wealth was only a product of power, because without power any schlub with a dagger would come for you. Today's wealthy need a small entourage of security and bookkeepers, but that's a far cry from a whole-ass army.
- BirAdam 4y ago
  Oh no. US billionaires do, indeed, have a military. It is the largest, most powerful, most well equipped military in human history. It is the US armed forces. They also have police departments across the country. This is a very large subsidy to these billionaires, as are: mass transit, food stamps, WIC, etc. Without these government services (which the billionaires put in place through politicians whom they purchased), the billionaires would have to provide the services or be killed by angry mobs.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    The US military is a jobs program that elevates hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. It’s the most effective socialist program in human history. It’s unassailable in domestic politics.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - pstuart 4y ago
      This fact cannot be emphasized enough. The pity of it is that the jobs are not oriented towards public works.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        It’s arguable but generally I agree. The New Deal worked for the US. National service policies in general seem to work well globally. Defense seems to be a non-issue but domestic service is debatable. It’s disgusting but this is our reality. It’s the ultimate condemnation of “conservative” values. As a millennial I would have joined the National Guard if there was a guarantee of no service in foreign wars. I think a peaceful national service organization that guaranteed some kind of modest lifetime pension and higher education would resolve a lot of debates. But, for most US military vets that’s already true of their service.
polio 4y ago
It's why I mention "effective" charities. Corruption and inefficiency among charities is yet another issue that we can solve.
polio 4y ago
I can believe that some rich individuals are uniquely gifted in some way that makes them deserving of being richer than most of other people. I also think that the magnitude of this phenomenon is not proportional to how much richer they are, in practice. I share the sentiment that most of the wealth of billionaires is attributable to their workers, luck, and favorable environmental circumstances. Some marginal amount is due to the industriousness and ingenuity of the person in question.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Generally agree. But if they're gifted then, then like any lottery winner, it's hard to see them as more deserving of wealth than any other.
  - what-imright 4y ago
    [dead]

Sporktacular 4y ago

"The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite" This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work. This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies vs others. Other countries produce fewer and then only natural resource millionaires in the favour of the ruling elites. But they can't do so without labour and the resources owned by those societies. The rich owe almost everything not produced by their own hands. And comparing the figures of corruption in those countries to that of charities generally is so absurd it's laughable.

mulmen 4y ago
Ostensibly wealth is a settled debt.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Ostensibly. 'Owe' is more than accounting parlance.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    Is it? This is social accounting. It all translates.
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      Yeah. Just as wealth is more than accounting parlance.
dotancohen 4y ago
> They owe their wealth to the workers working for > them. To the education system that educated their > workers and made them productive, the roads that > brought them to work and the health system that > keeps them at work. Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.
- kqr 4y ago
  Assuming further that the taxes accurately measure the benefit that comes from the interaction of luck, privilege and society. Assuming even further that taxes effectively redistribute wealth to workers, educators, and nurturers. These are together three assumptions, none of which I think are true.
  - closeparen 4y ago
    Taxes are the price we pay for society. Quite! Well, a price never fully captures the value to the buyer of what they're acquiring. Otherwise they'd be worse off for making the exchange. We cooperate because we both gain more than we lose from said cooperation. That's a great and beautiful thing.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  This is a lazy libertarian talking point. When someone accepts come award saying he owes his success to his family/mentor/agent, it's not an IOU for some cash value. But even if it was, how would you quantify whether a tax rate captures the full, less-tangible value of what a society provides? If through lobbying or creative accounting, a billionaire is able to reduce his yearly taxable income to $100 then he's met your definition of fully paid-up, when obviously he 'owes' (in the ethical, non-accounting sense) a lot more. Because society provides more than just economic opportunity, taxes are just one of the things we're required to pay back. We're expected to follow the law or sometimes fight for it (giving up some of our absolute freedoms), to be helpful or follow hundreds of other social conventions. If you insist on reducing all that to a tax rate, then it's so low that it points to a welfare state for the rich.
closeparen 4y ago
Indeed, the rich owe society for all these things. The amount they owe is called the price. And the time for which they owe it is from the moment of services rendered until the invoice is paid. Some of them, indeed, weasel out of paying the agreed-upon prices for their inputs. A certain former President comes to mind. But once paid, the debts are clear.

raisedbyninjas 4y ago

Don't go to the dentist. Some of them live lavishly pushing unneeded and overpriced care.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

The rich wouldn't exist without society. They owe far more than the average person. Simply maintaining and storing wealth requires rather complex societal structures; before modern society wealth was only a product of power, because without power any schlub with a dagger would come for you. Today's wealthy need a small entourage of security and bookkeepers, but that's a far cry from a whole-ass army.

BirAdam 4y ago
Oh no. US billionaires do, indeed, have a military. It is the largest, most powerful, most well equipped military in human history. It is the US armed forces. They also have police departments across the country. This is a very large subsidy to these billionaires, as are: mass transit, food stamps, WIC, etc. Without these government services (which the billionaires put in place through politicians whom they purchased), the billionaires would have to provide the services or be killed by angry mobs.
- mulmen 4y ago
  The US military is a jobs program that elevates hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. It’s the most effective socialist program in human history. It’s unassailable in domestic politics.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pstuart 4y ago
    This fact cannot be emphasized enough. The pity of it is that the jobs are not oriented towards public works.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      It’s arguable but generally I agree. The New Deal worked for the US. National service policies in general seem to work well globally. Defense seems to be a non-issue but domestic service is debatable. It’s disgusting but this is our reality. It’s the ultimate condemnation of “conservative” values. As a millennial I would have joined the National Guard if there was a guarantee of no service in foreign wars. I think a peaceful national service organization that guaranteed some kind of modest lifetime pension and higher education would resolve a lot of debates. But, for most US military vets that’s already true of their service.

polio 4y ago

It's why I mention "effective" charities. Corruption and inefficiency among charities is yet another issue that we can solve.

polio 4y ago

I can believe that some rich individuals are uniquely gifted in some way that makes them deserving of being richer than most of other people. I also think that the magnitude of this phenomenon is not proportional to how much richer they are, in practice. I share the sentiment that most of the wealth of billionaires is attributable to their workers, luck, and favorable environmental circumstances. Some marginal amount is due to the industriousness and ingenuity of the person in question.

Sporktacular 4y ago
Generally agree. But if they're gifted then, then like any lottery winner, it's hard to see them as more deserving of wealth than any other.
- what-imright 4y ago
  [dead]