4 ms·

It may not be a question of if the person in question has to pay themselves. If enough people in a functioning democracy think that it is a good idea for those

It may not be a question of if the person in question has to pay themselves. If enough people in a functioning democracy think that it is a good idea for those who are getting more, to pay more, then it would become law (decree if you like). Those people who would have to pay then could either take their wealth and attempt to leave with it (with all the consequences for both parties that might entail), or they can pay the share they are designated, and attempt to make more money with their wealth/connections/etc. Greed is funny in that if you have a lot, you don't tend to see wanting more (or to pay out less) as greedy, while those who are denied the same amount, see those with a great deal (who do not want to contribute what the public believes is their fair share) as greedy.

nickff 13y ago
>"If enough people in a functioning democracy think that it is a good idea for those who are getting more, to pay more, then it would become law" This is how western democracies currently function, though it does not imply that the results are moral or even good. >"Those people who would have to pay then could either take their wealth and attempt to leave with it (with all the consequences for both parties that might entail), or they can pay the share they are designated, and attempt to make more money with their wealth/connections/etc." This statement basically says 'take it or leave it', which I suppose is fine, but does not mean that the state which implements high tax rates will achieve its desired results, and this does not speak to the morality of the average voter either. You seem to ignore my point, which is that people who vote for higher tax rates and increased redistribution of wealth are not actually doing very much to solve any real problem. Voting to raise taxes on the rich demonstrates little personal responsibility, as the voter does not pay to solve the problem, and does not even try to convince others of their moral responsibilities.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You seem to ignore my point, which is that people who vote for higher tax rates and increased redistribution of wealth are not actually doing very much to solve any real problem. This requires the assumption that the distribution of wealth that is being address is not a real problem. > Voting to raise taxes on the rich demonstrates little personal responsibility, as the voter does not pay to solve the problem Payment to solve the problem is a method to "demonstrate personal responsibility" because it is one method by which one exercises one's power to solve a problem one has perceived, but voting is equally so a method to "demonstrate personal responsibility". > and does not even try to convince others of their moral responsibilities. Well, sure, voting itself may not be an mechanism for trying to convince others of their moral responsibilities (then again, it may be, people have been known to cite drawing attention to an issue and raising awareness to be motivations for voting behavior on issues and candidates), but even where it is not it is often not an isolated behavior, people who based on a preference for a particular policy very often engage in advocacy around the policy, including advocacy based on the premise that it enforces a moral obligation.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"This requires the assumption that the distribution of wealth that is being address is not a real problem." My point was that voting is 'not actually doing very much', as it is easy to do, and unlikely to have any real impact. >"but voting is equally so a method to "demonstrate personal responsibility"." Voting is cheap, easy, and free from repercussions; I struggle to see how it involves any measure of responsibility. >"people have been known to cite drawing attention to an issue and raising awareness to be motivations for voting behavior on issues and candidates), but even where it is not it is often not an isolated behavior, people who based on a preference for a particular policy very often engage in advocacy around the policy, including advocacy based on the premise that it enforces a moral obligation." You may be correct, and I may be too cynical, but I see 'raising awareness' as the last refuge of the ineffective activist.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  When did a democracy or a democratic decision imply moral absolutes? That would be my question. does not mean that the state which implements high tax rates will achieve its desired results, and this does not speak to the morality of the average voter either. Agreed! Every situation is different and that is by no means a silver bullet. If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it. You are correct that it may not be the actual problem... But I do not think that you can effectively bring 'morals' into the equation of tax codes or being rich/poor. Personal responsibility means very very different things to any given person. I do not think you can find many extremely wealthy people who think they have a moral responsibility to help out their lesser man (feed the poor), while you can find many 'poor' people who think it should be their moral responsibility ('if you have so much more than you can ever use why can't you help those less fortunate' sort of thing).
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it." Your vote is unlikely to have any real impact, (the same is true of mine,) so while the people may be 'doing something', this 'something' may be the least effective action one could possibly take. I vote in every election, but even I must acknowledge that I would be doing much more for my fellow citizens if I spent the same amount of time picking up garbage from the streets.
    - djs123sdj 13y ago
      The problem with this argument is that it ignores the basic contract of power in a (functioning) democratic government: The people, through their votes, lend their power to a government that aggregates that collective power to accomplish larger societal objectives (financing wars, building bridges, educating generations, enforcing civil society, etc), that would not be possible if the maintenance of society was left to everyone's individual will. Just as valid: peoples votes in elections after 9/11 gave the government power to compromise civil liberties in the name of security. Does your city have a street sweeping service (which are usually publicly funded by taxes approved by ... votes)? Without one, in an urban/suburban environment, your street would be full of garbage in no time, probably too much for you or other like-minded people to clean up. Votes aren't a solution for every large problem, but it's far fetched to say that don't have any impact. Much of what we take for granted in modern public conveniences happened because people voted for representatives that in turn supported those endeavors.

nickff 13y ago

>"If enough people in a functioning democracy think that it is a good idea for those who are getting more, to pay more, then it would become law" This is how western democracies currently function, though it does not imply that the results are moral or even good. >"Those people who would have to pay then could either take their wealth and attempt to leave with it (with all the consequences for both parties that might entail), or they can pay the share they are designated, and attempt to make more money with their wealth/connections/etc." This statement basically says 'take it or leave it', which I suppose is fine, but does not mean that the state which implements high tax rates will achieve its desired results, and this does not speak to the morality of the average voter either. You seem to ignore my point, which is that people who vote for higher tax rates and increased redistribution of wealth are not actually doing very much to solve any real problem. Voting to raise taxes on the rich demonstrates little personal responsibility, as the voter does not pay to solve the problem, and does not even try to convince others of their moral responsibilities.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> You seem to ignore my point, which is that people who vote for higher tax rates and increased redistribution of wealth are not actually doing very much to solve any real problem. This requires the assumption that the distribution of wealth that is being address is not a real problem. > Voting to raise taxes on the rich demonstrates little personal responsibility, as the voter does not pay to solve the problem Payment to solve the problem is a method to "demonstrate personal responsibility" because it is one method by which one exercises one's power to solve a problem one has perceived, but voting is equally so a method to "demonstrate personal responsibility". > and does not even try to convince others of their moral responsibilities. Well, sure, voting itself may not be an mechanism for trying to convince others of their moral responsibilities (then again, it may be, people have been known to cite drawing attention to an issue and raising awareness to be motivations for voting behavior on issues and candidates), but even where it is not it is often not an isolated behavior, people who based on a preference for a particular policy very often engage in advocacy around the policy, including advocacy based on the premise that it enforces a moral obligation.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"This requires the assumption that the distribution of wealth that is being address is not a real problem." My point was that voting is 'not actually doing very much', as it is easy to do, and unlikely to have any real impact. >"but voting is equally so a method to "demonstrate personal responsibility"." Voting is cheap, easy, and free from repercussions; I struggle to see how it involves any measure of responsibility. >"people have been known to cite drawing attention to an issue and raising awareness to be motivations for voting behavior on issues and candidates), but even where it is not it is often not an isolated behavior, people who based on a preference for a particular policy very often engage in advocacy around the policy, including advocacy based on the premise that it enforces a moral obligation." You may be correct, and I may be too cynical, but I see 'raising awareness' as the last refuge of the ineffective activist.
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
When did a democracy or a democratic decision imply moral absolutes? That would be my question. does not mean that the state which implements high tax rates will achieve its desired results, and this does not speak to the morality of the average voter either. Agreed! Every situation is different and that is by no means a silver bullet. If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it. You are correct that it may not be the actual problem... But I do not think that you can effectively bring 'morals' into the equation of tax codes or being rich/poor. Personal responsibility means very very different things to any given person. I do not think you can find many extremely wealthy people who think they have a moral responsibility to help out their lesser man (feed the poor), while you can find many 'poor' people who think it should be their moral responsibility ('if you have so much more than you can ever use why can't you help those less fortunate' sort of thing).
- nickff 13y ago
  >"If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it." Your vote is unlikely to have any real impact, (the same is true of mine,) so while the people may be 'doing something', this 'something' may be the least effective action one could possibly take. I vote in every election, but even I must acknowledge that I would be doing much more for my fellow citizens if I spent the same amount of time picking up garbage from the streets.
  - djs123sdj 13y ago
    The problem with this argument is that it ignores the basic contract of power in a (functioning) democratic government: The people, through their votes, lend their power to a government that aggregates that collective power to accomplish larger societal objectives (financing wars, building bridges, educating generations, enforcing civil society, etc), that would not be possible if the maintenance of society was left to everyone's individual will. Just as valid: peoples votes in elections after 9/11 gave the government power to compromise civil liberties in the name of security. Does your city have a street sweeping service (which are usually publicly funded by taxes approved by ... votes)? Without one, in an urban/suburban environment, your street would be full of garbage in no time, probably too much for you or other like-minded people to clean up. Votes aren't a solution for every large problem, but it's far fetched to say that don't have any impact. Much of what we take for granted in modern public conveniences happened because people voted for representatives that in turn supported those endeavors.