Your Most Ethically Questionable View

[ananda]

Most people who are successful have worked hard to accomplish what they have. Most of the time their work greatly benefits us.

Let's say I invented a product that saves you $500 a year. I charge you $50 for it. You think this is a great price since you will be saving thousands of dollars over the next few years. After production and shipping costs, I make $10 profit off each unit. I decide to work 50 hours a week, all year, and end up selling 100,000 units nationally. I just made 1 million dollars because of my innovation and hard work. However, if the government tells me that's too much money to make and takes $900,000 of that away from me, what incentive do I have to sell more than 10,000 units each year? This product was saving others money and added value to society, but if I can cut my weekly hours down to 5 and make the same amount, why not? More time for fishing!

Society and the economy suffer when we restrict the success of others. We just need to get over the idea that we are all equal and it is unfair to have less than others. We live like kings compared to those living just 300 years ago. Why? Because we gave people the freedom and motivation to succeed.

If you were not legally protected behind a Corporation, would you still engage in such practices? Would your community allow you to engage in such practices?

There's another side to the statement "Let's say I invented a product that saves you $500 a year." - it is: "This invention lets you keep $500 a year more for yourself, and allows you to fire & impoverish your fellow community-member-employee."

IMO the only way to make that ethical would be to share that savings with the obsoleted employee, spreading and sharing the benefits of automation instead of hoarding it for yourself, so you can relax and fish more while your obsoleted employee rushes around in anguish trying desperately to land another job.

 

[Moral Orel]

I believe slavery is morally neutral - it's merely a primitive form of labor relations.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think personal income should be taxed at 100% over, let's say, a hundred grand. No one needs or deserves to be rich. The wealthy have a hoarding disorder and they give us nothing but social inequality. Surplus income is put to better use in education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research. On this point my conscience doesn't feel queasy one little bit.

What would be the point in bettering yourself if that were the case? Moreover being wealthy is not in and of itself wrong they do not by default have a hoarding disorder. I know a VERY wealthy man for example who we had to fight with him to get him to agree to have his name craved into stone for helping us build a new church building. That is NOT hoarding about as far from it as the sky is from green and then there are people who make 50k who live above their means and abuse assistance programs. Also, even the Bible says that VOLUNTARY giving ( particularly in cases where the person does not WANT to be noticed is more favorable to God than taxes.

 

[super animator]

Falsely accused of raped is worst then raped itself.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

I have many such views, being a pragmatic person.

I don't believe in most social services for drug addicts, alcoholics, substance abusers. I believe in offering rehab and services to get on their feet following rehab.

I do not believe in feeding or housing people who are known to be actively using. Generally, addicts who are so far gone as to need social services won't quit until they hit their bottom- by shoring them up- you keep them from their bottom. Yes, some will die, but they probably would have died, albeit more slowly, with social assistance. I have this view specifically because of addicts I have known.

I also don't think than solving homelessness is a reasonable goal. Getting the working poor into homes, sure. Getting the sober disabled and vets into homes- sure. Getting mental health care to those who need it (and want it), sure.

You will still have homeless. People who are addicts. People who are MI and not compliant with medications. People who want to live without what they view as societal rules and restrictions. Homelessness is not a solvable problem.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Side note, the problem with "total war" is that 1st world nations want to pretend that they are honorable, that their soldiers are professionals and not barbarian hordes. We've seen plenty of total war in civil conflicts- who would want those soldiers back knowing what they did?

 

[Moral Orel]

What would be the point in bettering yourself if that were the case?

To get the good job that sits in an air conditioned office instead of working in a mine, for example. This idea that the only difference between the quality of jobs is the amount of money made is ridiculous.

Moreover being wealthy is not in and of itself wrong they do not by default have a hoarding disorder. I know a VERY wealthy man for example who we had to fight with him to get him to agree to have his name craved into stone for helping us build a new church building. That is NOT hoarding about as far from it as the sky is from green and then there are people who make 50k who live above their means and abuse assistance programs.

That has nothing to do with "hoarding". If that man is wealthy, then by definition he owns more assets than he needs. The fact that he didn't want to be memorialized for donating a small portion of it to your church has nothing to do with the fact that he could help more, and chooses not to so that he can continue to hold onto more assets than he needs. That is exactly what hoarding wealth is.

Also, even the Bible says that VOLUNTARY giving ( particularly in cases where the person does not WANT to be noticed is more favorable to God than taxes.

Of course it is. That's why donations to charity are tax deductible. But for those folks who choose to turn a blind eye to others in need and hold onto cash they'll never use, I have no problem with them being taxed a lot. $100k is a little extreme for me too, but he's not far off.

 

[Moral Orel]

Falsely accused of raped is worst then raped itself.

Wow, really? That's pretty extreme. Just to be clear, you think that a victim of being falsely accused is worse off than a victim of rape, right? I would find it a little less extreme if you were saying that a false accuser is worse than a rapist, but that's not really how you phrased it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Side note, the problem with "total war" is that 1st world nations want to pretend that they are honorable, that their soldiers are professionals and not barbarian hordes. We've seen plenty of total war in civil conflicts- who would want those soldiers back knowing what they did?

 

[dogs4thewin]

To get the good job that sits in an air conditioned office instead of working in a mine, for example. This idea that the only difference between the quality of jobs is the amount of money made is ridiculous.

That has nothing to do with "hoarding". If that man is wealthy, then by definition he owns more assets than he needs. The fact that he didn't want to be memorialized for donating a small portion of it to your church has nothing to do with the fact that he could help more, and chooses not to so that he can continue to hold onto more assets than he needs. That is exactly what hoarding wealth is.

Of course it is. That's why donations to charity are tax deductible. But for those folks who choose to turn a blind eye to others in need and hold onto cash they'll never use, I have no problem with them being taxed a lot. $100k is a little extreme for me too, but he's not far off.

You still end up only being able to go so far. Plus if anything blue collar workers especially those who work in minds and on farms and such one could argue they deserve to make more than any white collar office worker. Additionally there are OTHER things the wealthy can do with their money to benefit the community. For example, this particular man host community events and there is no telling what else he chooses to do with his money and time at this point to help the community. Being wealthy is not in and of itself a bad thing.

 

[Strathos]

Wow, really? That's pretty extreme. Just to be clear, you think that a victim of being falsely accused is worse off than a victim of rape, right? I would find it a little less extreme if you were saying that a false accuser is worse than a rapist, but that's not really how you phrased it.

It's possible for a falsely accused person to be proven innocent, but it's not possible for a rape victim to undo their rape.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's possible for a falsely accused person to be proven innocent, but it's not possible for a rape victim to undo their rape.

It is tricky because while you are right, but sometimes people are falsely accused end up being falsely convicted but even they are not many times people ( though wrongly) will still judge them.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's possible for a falsely accused person to be proven innocent, but it's not possible for a rape victim to undo their rape.

Well, once someone has been accused of rape, it's easy for people to continue assuming he did it even if they are acquitted. I think that's where super animator is coming from. I mean, OJ was acquitted, but we all still think he killed those people. Also, the plot to the movie Wild Things comes to mind. Bad examples, I know, but you get what I mean, I think.

I still think being raped is worse. I mean, even if your community continues to think you're a rapist, you can move and it all goes away.

 

[Moral Orel]

You still end up only being able to go so far.

How far is that? If you can only earn so much, which is what we're talking about, but what career choice is unattainable if you get taxed a whole heck of a lot in the highest tax bracket?

Plus if anything blue collar workers especially those who work in minds and on farms and such one could argue they deserve to make more than any white collar office worker.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. We're not talking about who deserves how much, we're talking about putting a cap on earnings.

Additionally there are OTHER things the wealthy can do with their money to benefit the community. For example, this particular man host community events and there is no telling what else he chooses to do with his money and time at this point to help the community.

There are lots of things wealthy people can do with their money, and if they chose to do all that they could, they would cease to be wealthy. If your friend does a lot of stuff, that's great. If it's a drop in the bucket to how much wealth he has then it's really just a token gesture though.

Being wealthy is not in and of itself a bad thing.

It's inherently selfish, whether you think that's bad or not is up to you. If someone with a huge income cared more about others than himself, he would give most of it away and he wouldn't be wealthy. In order to become wealthy, you have to put yourself first, that's just math.

For clarities sake, I'll point out that we have two issues here. One is the morality of amassing wealth and the other is the legality of amassing wealth. I think that we should have some legal limits to deter amassing huge amounts of wealth through taxation. But morally, if you're better off than comfortable, then you're being selfish.

I'm not judging though, either. If I won the lottery I'd be selfish too. I'd give some money to charity, but by and large I'd keep most of it for myself. But people should own that about themselves instead of saying, "Sure, I have four mansions, but I donated $10,000 to charity, so I'm generous." That's bologna.

What's that Bible story about the poor lady who donated some paltry sum versus the rich folk that donated gobs of gold? That's what I'm talking about. If you can scrape a million bucks from the cushions of your couch, it doesn't mean anything if you give it away.

 

[super animator]

Wow, really? That's pretty extreme. Just to be clear, you think that a victim of being falsely accused is worse off than a victim of rape, right? I would find it a little less extreme if you were saying that a false accuser is worse than a rapist, but that's not really how you phrased it.

Hey man this "Your Most Ethically questionable view", so I am giving you one that I have.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

I don't think prisons work so I would do away with them.

Non violent crimes get you strictly monitored time in a halfway house type setting (or house arrest) with therapy, drug rehab, education and a community service. There would be restitution as well. Why stick able bodied, non violent criminals in a cage where they can do no good?

Truly violent criminals? (Not for bar brawlers) Stick 'em on an island with a sea barrier and anti- aircraft missiles. Bare minimum supplies. Either work together or kill each other. I do not care.

 

[dogs4thewin]

How far is that? If you can only earn so much, which is what we're talking about, but what career choice is unattainable if you get taxed a whole heck of a lot in the highest tax bracket?

I don't know what this has to do with anything. We're not talking about who deserves how much, we're talking about putting a cap on earnings.

There are lots of things wealthy people can do with their money, and if they chose to do all that they could, they would cease to be wealthy. If your friend does a lot of stuff, that's great. If it's a drop in the bucket to how much wealth he has then it's really just a token gesture though.

It's inherently selfish, whether you think that's bad or not is up to you. If someone with a huge income cared more about others than himself, he would give most of it away and he wouldn't be wealthy. In order to become wealthy, you have to put yourself first, that's just math.

For clarities sake, I'll point out that we have two issues here. One is the morality of amassing wealth and the other is the legality of amassing wealth. I think that we should have some legal limits to deter amassing huge amounts of wealth through taxation. But morally, if you're better off than comfortable, then you're being selfish.

I'm not judging though, either. If I won the lottery I'd be selfish too. I'd give some money to charity, but by and large I'd keep most of it for myself. But people should own that about themselves instead of saying, "Sure, I have four mansions, but I donated $10,000 to charity, so I'm generous." That's bologna.

What's that Bible story about the poor lady who donated some paltry sum versus the rich folk that donated gobs of gold? That's what I'm talking about. If you can scrape a million bucks from the cushions of your couch, it doesn't mean anything if you give it away.

The poor lady gave all she had. With the rich it was not WHAT they gave it was HOW they gave it both in terms of their outlook ( that is to say that they gave what they did not want to give out of duty AND in terms of what they did they PURPOSELY made sure that the other people could HEAR them dropping those coins into the offering.

As for what blue collar has to do with anything someone has to do it everyone cannot be in an office somewhere that is climate controlled place. Also, wealthy people can give their money to help on an ongoing basis meaning not only help the community ( with the right heart by the way, but maintain and give to certain causes on a regular basis ( sort of like many people do, but more. If no one was wealthy no one could give as much money to support causes Even if you DO have limits the people who are wealthy with not the right heart would do things to keep their wealth. It is ALWAYS better for it to be voluntary than have mandatory limits on things like income. Here is the OTHER issue, if some people know that others will take care of them and that they need not support themselves then you will ALSO have people who will not pull their own weight. On the other hand, if wealth must be earned then people ( unless they just do not care) are more likely to put in effort.

 

[Moral Orel]

The poor lady gave all she had. With the rich it was not WHAT they gave it was HOW they gave it both in terms of their outlook ( that is to say that they gave what they did not want to give out of duty AND in terms of what they did they PURPOSELY made sure that the other people could HEAR them dropping those coins into the offering.

I think there's more to it than that. I don't see a reason to mention the poor lady and the disparity between their incomes and donation amounts if all it is about is the show the rich folk put on.

As for what blue collar has to do with anything someone has to do it everyone cannot be in an office somewhere that is climate controlled place.

And? Like I said, working in an office is a driving force to advance. No one is talking about communism if that's what you're getting at.

Also, wealthy people can give their money to help on an ongoing basis meaning not only help the community ( with the right heart by the way, but maintain and give to certain causes on a regular basis ( sort of like many people do, but more.

We've already established that there are lots of ways for wealthy people to give away their wealth. They choose not to more often than not (as a ratio of dollars earned), and that's the problem.

If no one was wealthy no one could give as much money to support causes Even if you DO have limits the people who are wealthy with not the right heart would do things to keep their wealth.

So don't do anything about it because some people will still find a way around it? Besides, if you have a big income you can still give away as much money as you want; it would all still be deductible. The ability to give comes from the amount of money streaming in, not on the amount of assets currently in your possession. I think that's what you're not getting. We don't need wealthy people, we need people who generate revenue. People who generate a lot of revenue are not necessarily wealthy.

It is ALWAYS better for it to be voluntary than have mandatory limits on things like income.

It is always better that people choose not to murder each other, but we still make laws about it.

Here is the OTHER issue, if some people know that others will take care of them and that they need not support themselves then you will ALSO have people who will not pull their own weight. On the other hand, if wealth must be earned then people ( unless they just do not care) are more likely to put in effort.

I never said anything about giving cash to poor people so they don't have to work. I don't think Eryk did either. Spending the tax revenue on essential services isn't the same as making it so people don't have to work. Health care, education, infrastructure, mental health, police, etc. One thing I would like to see is free/cheap daycare for poor folk so that people with kids can get to work.

Again, no one is talking about communism here, and no one is suggesting handing out cash to poor people. You would still strive to achieve success for the sake of having a job you like and can be comfortable in, and even with the over-the-top cap of $100k that was originally suggested, you would still have better income to strive for, it just wouldn't be the difference between $40k a year and $1mil a year.

 

[Icewater]

However, if the government tells me that's too much money to make and takes $900,000 of that away from me, what incentive do I have to sell more than 10,000 units each year? This product was saving others money and added value to society, but if I can cut my weekly hours down to 5 and make the same amount, why not? More time for fishing!

Well, I wasn't the one who came up with the "take everything over $100,000" thing, although I do believe in a strongly progressive tax rate. Counter point, though: wealth = power, and as a member of the 'general public' and not the plutocrat class, I think we have a vested interest in disallowing large power imbalances.

Also I'm doubtful that in our modern age any more than a paltry amount of innovation comes from this proto-typical "dude doing everything by himself in a garage" kind of operation.

We just need to get over the idea that we are all equal and it is unfair to have less than others.

Funny, I think that we just need to get over that idea.

We live like kings compared to those living just 300 years ago. Why? Because we gave people the freedom and motivation to succeed.

People have needs beyond the material. In many ways, I don't think we're really any better off than people living in previous eras at all. Additionally, "freedom" has many definitions and I tend toward believing that motivation has to come from within and this idea that people are motivated by the promises of riches into producing genuinely useful things to be suspect. I think innovation has to come from a passion for innovation and no amount of dangling green paper in front of a person can get them to produce things of value if they didn't already have an innovative mind. Also I don't believe the "without a financial incentive, nobody would do anything!" thing even a little bit. Humans are naturally creative.

 

[Strathos]

The problem I see is who gets to decide how much wealth is too much? And why do they get to make that decision for everyone else?

Then, with such power, they might decide that certain people do deserve more than others, and thus raise the limit on some (like themselves) and keep it the same, or lower it, on everyone else. You can see where this is going.