Should a rich person help a poor person just because they're rich?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: RVonse what is being said is that the upper elites are getting super rich and at the same time the lower middle class is slipping into poverty.

IE, the lower middle class is getting paid less money as time goes on?!

That's a lie.


It should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Lilith I believe in helping others in need. If I was very wealthy, I would help. I'm not wealthy, but come payday, I'm gonna find a worthy organization to donate too to help those people, can anyone recomend one that will ACTUALLY give to those in need? I would like to believe if it was me, then someone would help me out.....

I stick to helping family and friends. Giving to a third party organzation is ok if you don't mind the possibility that the money isn't going to be used well, but I think it would be better if people just stuck with helping someone directly. I saw a news story of a charity that paid 75% of the payments for a family to buy a home. How many people are only 10-20% away from being able to afford their own home? They could have helped 5 times as many people if they had bothered to think a bit more about it. I know the show was intended to demonstrate how the charity assists people but I couldn't help thinking of how many people who donated likely weren't able to afford their own home either. Having a lottery where if you're poor enough you strike it big, just seems to be counterproductive and can actually discourage people from getting ahead.

[ibm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Disagree. Capitalism in its current iteration is designed to oppress workers. The power of big money(Corporatism) is able to create a politics that accomplishes its purpose of increasing the bottom line, at the expense of the commons, workers health and safety, and workers wages. Not to mention hollowing out the manufacturing capability of the nation... Uuh... They live on the garbage being discarded by the wealthiest people on the planet? And America prides itself on capitalism, but in fact it is a politics of cronyism and fraud. Observe the looting by Pentagon contractors. Black individuals absconding with a hundredth of one percent of Halliburton's fraud get twenty years. Halliburton gets additional no-bid contracts... Maybe you live in an ivory tower where you can't see the process in action. I have done my time in the salt mines for wages good and poor, and you don't really understand the power of capital if you think it is entirely benign, Morgan.

i have to agree, from experience, wholeheartedly.

[ibm]

Quote by: Pale RIder Except the vast majority of Americans are employed by mom and pop.

huh? could you elaborate a little?

[ibm]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman ... Richer richer, most certainly. Poor poorer? Do you honestly believe that? How do you explain the fact that even the poorest people in America, the world's most robust capitalist society, have a higher standard of living than most of the world's population? ...

so not true. "comically false".

[Disinterested]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This is the most obvious and base philosophical question when it comes to politics as the government is nothing more than a machine that takes money away from those who have it and gives it to those who don't. Do you think that, as a human being, you're obligated buy your wealth to help other humans simply because you have more and they have less? My answer: no. You should get to keep every red cent that you earn and do with it what you please. That's the ultimate freedom that anyone should expect.

The well off should only help the less well off only when it is profitable for them to do so.

[ibm]

back to the original question. i think the answer is technically no. no, the rich should not help the poor just because they are rich. the rich can help the rich and the poor, the poor can help the poor and rich. just because we’re human beings. but again, that's "should" and "can", not necessarily "would".

[northtexan]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This is the most obvious and base philosophical question when it comes to politics as the government is nothing more than a machine that takes money away from those who have it and gives it to those who don't. Do you think that, as a human being, you're obligated buy your wealth to help other humans simply because you have more and they have less? My answer: no. You should get to keep every red cent that you earn and do with it what you please. That's the ultimate freedom that anyone should expect.

That's why we have taxes: we take it away from you to use for social purposes, rather than rely on the goodness of your heart. Don't go expecting to keep all you can grasp, because YOU WILL NOT be allowed to keep it all. Our country has recently seen the terrible cost we pay when we cut taxes on the rich and defund necessary expenditures. We must make sure that our elected officials get the message: first and foremost, keep the Inheritance Tax. Katrina's message: soak the rich, lest we all, and our economy, be soaked.

[Boetie]

tman_ndsu08 posts You should get to keep every red cent that you earn and do with it what you please.

The statement above is a contradiction. If someone earns that's fine, once they die return all that they earn back to the state and make their kids earn their own way.

If you pass the wealth onto the kids, the kids will be rich and powerful for no other reason than being the children of wealth, this is not the same as earn.

Inheriting is not the same as earning. There are many wealthy today that got wealthy by inheritance and not by earning and we have to hear about this earning bullshit.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman It's not possible for government to "support" a capitalist system. Capitalism is defined by the noninterference of government, not the presence thereof.

What an idiotic statement! It emerges from pure ideology, with no reference to anything in the world. Unfortunately elements of this ideology were experimented with in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism, with horrific effects, not the least of which was the growth of organized crime. Unfortunately for the U.S., very weak forms of this ideology have been experimented with in the last five years, and we have seen the terrible effects: growth of the poor population, further deterioration of our educational systems, and helplessness in the face of the recent hurricane Katrina (although the total ineptness of the Dubya Administration was the major factor, the ill effects of their policies only secondary). In fact, FDR saved the capitalist system in the U.S. by significant increase in governmental responsibilities -- and by contrast, the Bushistas have been destroying the viability of capitalism by trying to 'restrain government inference.'

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Richer richer, most certainly. Poor poorer? Do you honestly believe that? How do you explain the fact that even the poorest people in America, the world's most robust capitalist society, have a higher standard of living than most of the world's population?

Don't try to claim anything the poor have for your lack of government. Any gains of the poor came with government programs. Since first Reagan and, especially, the Bushistas have attacked the governmental 'safety net,' the poor population has grown.

As for capitalism itself, even Karl Marx noted that it added greatly to wealth and created the basis whereby everyone could gain, although they could not so long as capitalism was allowed to persist. But then Karl didn't think that government could adequately interfere so as to improve the plight of the poor and the workers nor restrain the greedy death spiral of the capitalists. Industrialized capitalist countries have proved him wrong, at least temporarily, for over a century; but the Busheviks seem determined to prove him right in the long run.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You know, the idea of capitalism making "the poor poorer" is so comically false that I would laugh if it weren't for the fact that so many people actually believe it.

Yeah, imagine all of those people believing their own eyes and the statistics, rather than your pure ideology. Capitalism without government restraint makes the poor poorer, and causes the middle to fall back into the poor. The Bushistas have nicely illustrated that for us, with constant growth of the percentage of the population below poverty as they have systematically attacked social programs.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This is a false dichotomy. Neither describes capitalism. Both describe the actions of a corrupt government.

The most-corrupt government with which this nation has ever been saddled, one that subscribes to your philosophy, is currently in power in Washington, and we have seen the tragic results.

[ibm]

Quote by: Boetie The statement above is a contradiction. If someone earns that's fine, once they die return all that they earn back to the state and make their kids earn their own way. ...

hasn't happened. isn't happening. won't happen. so quit your imagination.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: northtexan That's why we have taxes: we take it away from you to use for social purposes, rather than rely on the goodness of your heart. Don't go expecting to keep all you can grasp, because YOU WILL NOT be allowed to keep it all. Our country has recently seen the terrible cost we pay when we cut taxes on the rich and defund necessary expenditures. We must make sure that our elected officials get the message: first and foremost, keep the Inheritance Tax. Katrina's message: soak the rich, lest we all, and our economy, be soaked.

An outspokan socialist?!

I didn't think such a person actually existed since it's comical to me that a human would actually advocate that money should be stolen from everyone else so that he/she could benefit.


Luckily, you're the vast minority. I can rest at night knowing that people like you are merely misguided and will simply be brushed out of the way to make room for glorious tax cut after tax cut!

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Boetie The statement above is a contradiction. If someone earns that's fine, once they die return all that they earn back to the state and make their kids earn their own way. If you pass the wealth onto the kids, the kids will be rich and powerful for no other reason than being the children of wealth, this is not the same as earn. Inheriting is not the same as earning. There are many wealthy today that got wealthy by inheritance and not by earning and we have to hear about this earning bullshit.

Would you say that "do with it what you please" includes giving all of your money to someone for no reason?

If that be the case, I'll make sure to give everything I own to my children before I die.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 An outspokan socialist?! I didn't think such a person actually existed since it's comical to me that a human would actually advocate that money should be stolen from everyone else so that he/she could benefit. Luckily, you're the vast minority. I can rest at night knowing that people like you are merely misguided and will simply be brushed out of the way to make room for glorious tax cut after tax cut!

Stealing? You must have a strange view on society. As a matter of fact, why don't you live on your own, out on an island where no gov't can "steal" from you? We live in a society for a reason, to help one another; together we achieve more. Is your own greed more important than the happiness of everyone else?
I'm not advocating you share all your worldly possessions but sharing some is better than none. Unless you like to live on your own, of course.

[Gorgo]

No one makes it on their own. At some point, the selection of who owns what and runs what is arbitrary. The wealthiest few percent are born on third base or home base for the most part. The majority of the rest were born under decent or pretty good circumstances.

To say that I own this and society can't tell me what to do with it is absurd. I don't own it unless society tells me I own it in the first place.

Capitalism does not exist without a strong war-based economy and government. Corporations do not exist without government. They are created by government.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 An outspokan socialist?! I didn't think such a person actually existed since it's comical to me that a human would actually advocate that money should be stolen from everyone else so that he/she could benefit. Luckily, you're the vast minority. I can rest at night knowing that people like you are merely misguided and will simply be brushed out of the way to make room for glorious tax cut after tax cut!

I think he was just being sarcastic ... but I can't say I'm entirely certain.

No one makes it on their own. At some point, the selection of who owns what and runs what is arbitrary. The wealthiest few percent are born on third base or home base for the most part. The majority of the rest were born under decent or pretty good circumstances. To say that I own this and society can't tell me what to do with it is absurd. I don't own it unless society tells me I own it in the first place. Capitalism does not exist without a strong war-based economy and government. Corporations do not exist without government. They are created by government.

To me, relying on society to tell me what's mine is absurd. What if they say my children aren't mine or a car I worked to pay for must effectively be rented from the state?

Yes, I might comply for a while to avoid the hassle but I'm not going to buy into the idea that society is correct to any large extent.

Besides, government doesn't speak for society anyway. I can't go to my neighbor and ask him if he wanted me to pay property taxes and likely find out he didn't, so who does government represent anyway?

I do agree that corporate laws and government granted monopolies have caused a lot of grief but these aren't really the ideal of capitalism, just as not all liberal views support socialism.

[SteveA]

That's why we have taxes: we take it away from you to use for social purposes, rather than rely on the goodness of your heart. Don't go expecting to keep all you can grasp, because YOU WILL NOT be allowed to keep it all. Our country has recently seen the terrible cost we pay when we cut taxes on the rich and defund necessary expenditures. We must make sure that our elected officials get the message: first and foremost, keep the Inheritance Tax. Katrina's message: soak the rich, lest we all, and our economy, be soaked.

LOL!

I remember hearing a political convention where they had a child saying they should tax inheritance for the children! Just when you think you've seen the most hypocritical thing possible, something will top it.

(Isn't inheritance already for children ... so if government takes it instead ... to fund a war or repay social security funds they spent on a war or something ... it's somehow even more for the children? LOL)

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants We live in a society for a reason, to help one another; together we achieve more.

Forcible redistribution of wealth is not "helping", and its not the reason that this country was founded, or any society in history was formed.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: SteveA To me, relying on society to tell me what's mine is absurd.

It may or may not be absurd, but it is a fact. Try to tell someone that you own my computer. Who's going to stop you from taking it? The Libertarian Party? von Mises? No. Gummint. Like it or not, they say what you own and don't own. You may wish to change that, but that's the way that it is.

Quote by: SteveA Besides, government doesn't speak for society anyway. I can't go to my neighbor and ask him if he wanted me to pay property taxes and likely find out he didn't, so who does government represent anyway?

Sorry, don't know what this means or why it's relevant. Government, in the U.S., has the final say as to who owns what. Again, if you doubt that, then decide that you own the State of New York and see where that gets you.

Quote by: SteveA these aren't really the ideal of capitalism,

Again, that may be, but that is what it is now. If you'd like a society where government decides fewer things, then that's another discussion and would probably be some form of socialism.

[ibm]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Forcible redistribution of wealth is not "helping", and its not the reason that this country was founded, or any society in history was formed.

true.

on the other hand though, if distribution and/or re-distribution of wealth in a society becomes too much one-directional, the only consequence of that we’ve seen throughout history is a riot (or revolution, whatever you call it). in more plain english, if the richer gets richer and the poorer becomes poorer and the trend exceeds a certain degree, the old society is going to be upturned – just like the levees were broken in new orleans.