Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

earthworm said:

The income tax rates should be reset to those of the Clinton Era.

Click to expand...

I have read that this would have reduced the total debt run up since 2001 by $1.2-1.5T, or, generously, $150B/yr.
That leaves a defecit of ~$1350B
How, exactly, do you suppose we take care of that?

MusicAdventurer said:

philosophy of democracy requires people to stand up for their beliefs ... just trying to help you understand the concept man .. hope that helped

Click to expand...

It also requires that you not persecute the minority with a majority. Which is what you proposed.

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual or group rights.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's because:

equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.

Click to expand...

There's that pesky freedom term again. How about we define freedom as NOT freedom, as liberals often do, then we can ignore that right?

You do realize that ethics and morality are not tested in ideal circumstances, they are tested in the extreme situation. You are not a free nation if you only observe freedom when you feel like it, only for people you personally think are OK. Sure, the poor fisherman should be free, poor guy right? What about the billionaire fat cat.....? When you accept that you must treat them with the same fairness, you might grow a little inside. This is no different than the teachings of Love Your Enemy, or simply recognizing that individual freedom is a fundamental building block of...you know, good. That you fail that test is not a surprise, most do. Anyone can learn however.

Organize a charity around volunterrism, ala imageps suggestion, if you really desire it. Stop abusing government and freedoms to further your own personal agenda to take from others.

Mach said:

Organize a charity around volunterrism, ala imageps suggestion, if you really desire it. Stop abusing government and freedoms to further your own personal agenda to take from others.

Click to expand...

He beleives that government is not just a, but THE, vehicle for the imposiiton of a selective morality, with his version as the only legitimate selection - all others need not apply.
Yes - the hypocrisy of this -is- self-evident.

MusicAdventurer said:

We've already gone over this in other threads ... market economies do not exist .. remember?

Click to expand...

I understand you're new to these particular forums, so here's the scoop. Semantic quibbles about "pure", "true", "absolute", belong in the philosophy forum. If you keep raising them here, despite being corrected, it makes you look...<insert whatever you think is appropriate here>.
If you continue to misrepresent such positions, despite being clearly rebutted on that specific issue multiple times, that gets really annoying, and off-topic.

For example:
Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example, the United States constitutes a mixed economy (substantial market regulation, agricultural subsidies, extensive government-funded research and development, Medicare/Medicaid), yet at the same time it is foundationally rooted in a market economy.

Click to expand...

So, using your ENORMOUS man-sized brain, try to focus on what makes sense in the debate (i.e. that the U.S. is based on market principles), and not the tired absurd philisophical debate about "no pure <market, socialist, communist> <economy, government>" actually EXISTS!! Dur!

I even included "market BASED", to try to hold your hand on that precise point, you but you still managed to get lost. Please jettison the semantic antics, and rejoin a mature disuscssion.

PzKfW IVe said:

He beleives that government is not just a, but THE, vehicle for the imposiiton of a selective morality, with his version as the only legitimate selection - all others need not apply. Yes - the hypocrisy of this -is- self-evident.

Click to expand...

It's like using a shotgun to clean your fingernails. It works sometimes, usually by accident, but it's incredibly dangerous, dumb, and usually results in the destruction of everything you were trying to fix.

MusicAdventurer said:

Why do you think a minimum wage exists (even if its too low)?

Click to expand...

Murderers exist, does that make them magically legitimate? If no, then you lose that tangent rebuttal. If yes, then we're not communicating.
If you want to argue min wage, there is a thread on that topic, or make a new thread. You're OP is about forcefully taking money from billionaires, presumably beacuse you "feel like it".

There are lots of potentially good reasons to tax certain billionaires more. "Just because" isn't one of them.

Mach said:

It's like using a shotgun to clean your fingernails. It works sometimes, usually by accident, but it's incredibly dangerous, dumb, and usually results in the destruction of everything you were trying to fix.

Click to expand...

Well, no... it's more like telling your kids that it's wrong to eat chocolate while you down your 4th Snickers bar.

Mach said:

It also requires that you not persecute the minority with a majority. Which is what you proposed.

Click to expand...

Persecute? i.e. Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment Google

When did I propose that we should persecute anybody?

Mach said:

There's that pesky freedom term again. How about we define freedom as NOT freedom, as liberals often do, then we can ignore that right?

You do realize that ethics and morality are not tested in ideal circumstances, they are tested in the extreme situation. You are not a free nation if you only observe freedom when you feel like it, only for people you personally think are OK. Sure, the poor fisherman should be free, poor guy right? What about the billionaire fat cat.....? When you accept that you must treat them with the same fairness, you might grow a little inside. This is no different than the teachings of Love Your Enemy, or simply recognizing that individual freedom is a fundamental building block of...you know, good.

Click to expand...

Freedom is a pesky word isn't it? You see, when there is government, certain freedoms are (by definition) removed - anything else would be an absence of government (aka anarchy) which is a myth and doesn't exist. Democracy allows people to stand up for the rights they believe in so that government can protect those rights ... this of course comes at the cost of freedom as every time you tell someone "you can't kill", for example, you are stripping that person's freedom to act in the way they choose, while at the same time protecting others rights to live their lives with a lower chance of being murdered ... do you see what I am getting at? It all comes down to what rights you want to protect. Make sense?

PzKfW IVe said:

Well, no... it's more like telling your kids that it's wrong to eat chocolate while you down your 4th Snickers bar.

Click to expand...

Let's disagree then!
using government to attempt to solve all problems = shotgun analogy
saying money is bad as you take their money = chocolate bar analogy

Mach said:

Murderers exist, does that make them magically legitimate? If no, then you lose that tangent rebuttal. If yes, then we're not communicating.
If you want to argue min wage, there is a thread on that topic, or make a new thread. You're OP is about forcefully taking money from billionaires, presumably beacuse you "feel like it".

There are lots of potentially good reasons to tax certain billionaires more. "Just because" isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

You of course know what point I was getting at and simply because you do not agree with minimum wage does not prove your point. Do you agree that people should not murder? If so, who is going to make sure it doesn't happen? What about the individuals freedom to do as he/she chooses (e.g. killing someone)?

My OP was not about "forcefully taking money from billionaires, presumably beacuse you feel like it" ... perhaps you should give it another read

I suggest you read up on some political science literature .. in can help a lot .. just trying to help

Mach said:

Let's disagree then!
using government to attempt to solve all problems = shotgun analogy
saying money is bad as you take their money = chocolate bar analogy

Click to expand...

I can agree to that!

Mach said:

I understand you're new to these particular forums, so here's the scoop. Semantic quibbles about "pure", "true", "absolute", belong in the philosophy forum. If you keep raising them here, despite being corrected, it makes you look...<insert whatever you think is appropriate here>.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll insert ... extremely intelligent

Mach said:

the U.S. is based on market principles

Click to expand...

Good now we are getting somewhere

Good job at avoiding responding to my post regarding how one stays consistent within democratic philosophy ... well done *claps*

It would a terrible oppression of personal freedom to put a wealth cap on people. The government has absolutely no right to cap how much someone can make and determine how much wealth is too much wealth.

digsbe said:

It would a terrible oppression of personal freedom to put a wealth cap on people. The government has absolutely no right to cap how much someone can make and determine how much wealth is too much wealth.

Click to expand...

I agree .. however, if progressive taxes without loopholes means that some ridiculously wealthy have to settle for one or two less homes or own a smaller private jet .. I won't complain

digsbe said:

It would a terrible oppression of personal freedom to put a wealth cap on people. The government has absolutely no right to cap how much someone can make and determine how much wealth is too much wealth.

Click to expand...

Greed = having more than you "need"
Need = what a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.

Of course, if you try to make a similar imposition on a liberal - that is, limit -their- rights according to -your- version of morality - they will have nothing of it.

MusicAdventurer said:

PerseWhen did I propose that we should persecute anybody?

Click to expand...

The OP does, taking money from someone just because, is sufficient, (it's back by law enforcement to boot). You're playing games, I don't appreciate it.

Freedom is a pesky word isn't it? You see, when there is government, certain freedoms are (by definition) removed - anything else would be an absence of government (aka anarchy) which is a myth and doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Once again, since no one is proposing such myths, you going back once again to the "those don't really exist" argument. Are you not understanding that no one is arguing about myths and "pure freedom", again, just like our little chat about "pure socialism, or pure free market, or absolute truth"? I do realize that some, even mainstream libertarians, do bring up such nonsence...but please inject them into my arguments.

Democracy allows people to stand up for the rights they believe in so that government can protect those rights

Click to expand...

And I already informed you that a majority rules approach can and does also allow for "tyranny of the majority". Which you did not address with the above, you simply made a general statement about political activism. Understand, tyranny of the majority occurs even if you strictly allow eveyone to stand up for the rights they believe in....is the entire point.

... this of course comes at the cost of freedom as every time you tell someone "you can't kill", for example, you are stripping that person's freedom to act in the way they choose, while at the same time protecting others rights to live their lives with a lower chance of being murdered ... do you see what I am getting at?

Click to expand...

Assume I know the basics please. You also appear to be missing the entire point about freedom.
Once again, if freedom is only valued because of a majority, it doesn't meet any meaningful defintion of freedom.

If 100 people are free to vote, and 99 vote to hang one, beacuse he has big feet, by your reasoning that would be freedom. I don't care who stands up for his big-feet rights, or not. It doesn't make it a free society in any *meaningful* way. And I do assume you want to have a meaningful discussion.

As to murder being reasonable to prohibit it's not simply because a majority wants to (and yes a minority does NOT want to!), but because it is a necessary physical premise to being individually free, having ANY rights, having any expression, all fundametnals to the idea of democracy and life, liberty, etc. You can't logically petition for protection from government if you are dead. If you build a hierarchy of fundametnal rights, that's at the top. Likewise, it's protected.

Individual freedoms always collide with other individual freedoms in society. However, simply saying a majority wins the argument as to which freedoms you observe and which you do not, is your argument. And it's been shown to be absurd.

You have some other argument to make about this?

Mach said:

If 100 people are free to vote, and 99 vote to hang one, beacuse he has big feet, by your reasoning that would be freedom. I don't care who stands up for his big-feet rights, or not. It doesn't make it a free society in any *meaningful* way. And I do assume you want to have a meaningful discussion.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more (and remember, I said that democracy has its problems). Considering we both see that democracy has its problems .. what governmental system would you propose to address those problems without loosing the benefits of democracy?

MusicAdventurer said:

My OP was not about "forcefully taking money from billionaires, presumably beacuse you feel like it" ... perhaps you should give it another read

Click to expand...

I just read it again. Still looks like you impy that:
Tax rates on the very wealthy should be raised, because you believe it's a good idea to do so.
If you have some other implication to what you wrote, please let's not waste time.

I suggest you read up on some political science literature .. in can help a lot .. just trying to help

Click to expand...

I suggest you refrain from such nonsense. I think your posts look like new-blood to such arguments. Eager like a puppy, playful, well-meaning, but still has a lot to learn. If I had to guess I'd say a student that make very little, and contributes very little to our markets.

So if we both keep posting little quips like that, it's a waste of time. How about neither of us do so.

MusicAdventurer said:

Should a multi-billionaire be forced to settle for 7 homes instead of 10, 2 private jets instead of 3 etc.?

Hypothetical situation:

Meet: Billionaire Bush

He is a billionaire

Has 20 homes, 3 private jets, sends his 10 children to the very best private and or ivy league schools, has several concubines, runs several companies whose bottom level employees (the vast majority of his employees) make little above minimum wage, lets larges amounts of money sit in his bank account, many of his companies are hurtful to the earth, many of his companies are diversions and failures meant to avoid paying income tax and so on

Click to expand...

In a free market system, they're free to romp. In a system set up where in there is significant entanglement of market and state and rules set up to keep those billionaires billionaires where as the rest of the people have no such legal recourse, well perhaps they can pay for the laws they influence and the benefitial treatment they receive.

Mach said:

I just read it again. Still looks like you impy that:
Tax rates on the very wealthy should be raised, because you believe it's a good idea to do so

Click to expand...

Actually, if you have read any of my posts, you would know that I do not believe this simply because "it would be a good idea to do so" (LMAO .. you're silly )

Instead, my reasoning was that doing so as it is better than taxing those who have nothing to tax - of course I support welfare that rewards the poor for moving up the class ladder, which would require government funding, e.g. monetary rewards for making more money (until of course they have brought themselves to a point where they are self-sufficient).

Mach said:

I think your posts look like new-blood to such arguments. Eager like a puppy, playful, well-meaning, but still has a lot to learn.

Click to expand...

Insulting others is not a very good way to argue. jmo ... I'm pretty sure it's not allowed .. not completely sure though, can get back to you on that .. thank you for the well meaning part though

MusicAdventurer said:

Now we're getting somewhere. I do not consider myself a liberal or a conservative .. I, like you, want to see less suffering in the world.

Click to expand...

Would it be safe to say that you are far left of conservative? :roll:

Suffering will always be part of the world and I don't want to get involved in the entire world. My name is not Quixote. My preference is to concentrate on the U.S. I have given money to help relieve AIDS and malaria in Africa, but my focus remains here.

LesGovt said:

Would it be safe to say that you are far left of conservative? :roll:

Suffering will always be part of the world and I don't want to get involved in the entire world. My name is not Quixote. My preference is to concentrate on the U.S. I have given money to help relieve AIDS and malaria in Africa, but my focus remains here.

Click to expand...

That's O.K. if you do not care about suffering ... however, I have met a handful of conservatives that do.

Oh and just so you know .. caring about others is not the only partisan definer.

There are many other issues that define one's political stance. You should try googling "what's my political stance" or "political stance calculator" sometime .. maybe take a few quizzes, you may learn something ... it you find one that you really like, let me know, I'm always up for learning knew things about myself

earthworm said:

The income tax rates should be reset to those of the Clinton Era....compalin too much and we will go back to the Eisenhower Era. The attitude and greed of the rich is sickening.......
Enough stupid ranting..
What we must do is cut waste and the reason behind it...the quality of our people...
We may be at a point of maxing out where it come to "cutting".
Education is the answer.
And tolerance.

Click to expand...

Why did you place your words in what was supposed to be a quote by me? That is truly dishonest. As for the rest of your statement, you are entitled to your less than civil opinion. Have a nice day!

MusicAdventurer said:

That's O.K. if you do not care about suffering ... however, I have met a handful of conservatives that do.

Oh and just so you know .. caring about others is not the only partisan definer.

There are many other issues that define one's political stance. You should try googling "what's my political stance" or "political stance calculator" sometime .. maybe take a few quizzes, you may learn something ... it you find one that you really like, let me know, I'm always up for learning knew things about myself

Click to expand...

Wow! What happened to our friendly discussion? Where in the world did I say that I don't care about suffering. Sheesh! All I said is that I give to relieve suffering in Africa, but my main focus is on the U.S. I cannot take care of the world nor can the United States. I know you have seen our deficit and our debt and surely you agree with me on this. I have taken many political tests or quizes and I always find that I am a conservative.

LesGovt said:

Wow! What happened to our friendly discussion? Where in the world did I say that I don't care about suffering.

Click to expand...

You don't care about it the way HE does - and thus, you don't care.
My ex-wife was like that. Goes a long way to explain the ex- part.