quote:I guess what I'm trying to show is that defining wealth as $$$ leaves out a lot of valuable things that cannot reasonably be assigned $$$.
That is precisely why the maggots are so useful. How many maggots would you eat - say monthly - in exchange for living in a vibrant, neighbourly community where you knew lots of cool people?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, my point was that this is part of living in a democracy.
If you are only in a small minority, you still have a right to fight for your beliefs, but you still have to follow the rules of the vast majority.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess what I'm trying to show is that defining wealth as $$$ leaves out a lot of valuable things that cannot reasonably be assigned $$$.
That is precisely why the maggots are so useful. How many maggots would you eat - say monthly - in exchange for living in a vibrant, neighbourly community where you knew lots of cool people?
Can we swallow without chewing?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, if you think the wriggling sensation of a non-chewed maggot going down your throat is any improvement. These are live maggots, remember.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the maggot example, but it only works if we lived in a world where maggots were the only form of commerce, and to be honest, that world is pretty nonsensical. I'm not a particularly rich person but I don't think I'd be willing to eat a maggot to pay for anything, period. (You might be able to persuade me to eat for a million dollars, but even then it'd have to be in a pretty controlled environment). And there's no such thing as "half a maggot" because once you start chopping them into pieces it starts to lose the gross-ness factor.
Anyways...
I think it's perfectly justifiable for the government to do it's best to bring about the greatest good for everyone, and I think raising taxes to pay for services that benefit the public is worthwhile.
However, there's a limit to what specific means will be effective here. Raise the taxes on the rich too much, and they'll just move to another country with a lower taxrate (or hell, build their own island-nation where they get to make up whatever rules they want).
Rich people in general have more ability to avoid rules than poor people, and I think that's a good enough self selecting factor to offset the unfairness of majority tyranny.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not a particularly rich person but I don't think I'd be willing to eat a maggot to pay for anything, period.
Right, because you are wealthy beyond dreams of avarice by most standards. But try it the other way: Suppose I get elected to the Presidency in 2012 on my innovative "Maggot Economy" ticket, and decide to reform the tax system thusly: Either you eat a maggot, or the IRS confiscates all your property. I think you'd see quite a bit of maggot-eating, humans being generally more attached to things they already own than things they might gain in the future.
Anyway, for maggots, feel free to substitute "some unpleasant task". Flipping burgers at McDonalds', maybe. The point is that there are many things the homeless guy is willing to do for 100 bucks, which the millionaire won't do; therefore the subjective value of the dollars is objectively greater for the homeless guy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think it's also possible to find value in something one doesn't possess, like the stars in the sky or a work of art, but I'm not sure if that should be included in your wealth.
We're using the term "value" differently. I don't value stars in the sky; I value being able to see them. That's something I can attain or acquire. The stars themselves are not. It doesn't actually matter to me if they're actual stars out there, or if they're a projection against a solid sky.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"(You might be able to persuade me to eat for a million dollars, but even then it'd have to be in a pretty controlled environment)."
I'd probably eat one for a dollar, as long as I keep getting a dollar for each maggot I eat. (In a reasonably controlled environment.) I could retire within a few years, and I think they are quite nutritious.
If I couldn't be sure they wouldn't give me a tummyache, my price would be higher.
I'd eat just about anything that had a low chance of killing me for a million dollars, though.
What's so bad about eating a maggot anyway?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We're using the term "value" differently. I don't value stars in the sky; I value being able to see them. That's something I can attain or acquire. The stars themselves are not. It doesn't actually matter to me if they're actual stars out there, or if they're a projection against a solid sky.
It matters to me a great deal if the stars are real or if they're a projection. I think that by limiting the value of objects like stars to the happiness that they bring you when you look at them ignores much of what they are. Our sun is a subset of all the stars in the sky, and it wouldn't be here if the stars were a mere projection on a big sphere.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The stars themselves are not. It doesn't actually matter to me if they're actual stars out there, or if they're a projection against a solid sky.
I suspect that it does, in that you'd eat fewer maggots for the privilege of looking at stars you knew to be created by a clever illusion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're all agreeing on the definition of value, but different people are always going to value things differently. I'm sure there are people out there who care more about the stars existing than their ability to see them (this value is perhaps parallel to someone who values God's existence rather than direct contact with Him).
The points of disagreement seem to be:
1. Is it moral to force a minority to be taxed at higher rates for non-essential benefits to the majority and/or other minorities.
2. Is a higher tax rate for the rich a plan that will actually be effective in increasing the overall welfare of America? (or other countries)
3. Assuming that #1 is okay, what specific programs would actually be beneficial?
I can understand why people disagree with the morality of point 1. It mostly comes down to what you think the government's role is. But in a democracy, the government's role is neatly defined by the results of elections, which poor people have the ability to manipulate via numbers and rich people have the ability to manipulate via lots of money to spend on advertising and manipulate those numbers. Not to mention a much easier time leaving the country if they don't like the results. All things considered, I don't think rich people can complain about our government being "biased" against them.
Now even if you agree it's OKAY to tax rich people more, is it a good idea? Again, I think the fact that rich people can leave makes this an easy to answer question. If we err on the side of taxing them too much, we'll figure out soon when they start to leave and overall tax revenue drops.
For number 3, I have no idea. Economics is complicated. I think the government should help everyone achieve as much of their potential as possible, but I don't have the background to argue which methods are most effective. Better educated people than me can argue about that.
In any case, I definitely don't buy the "rich people worked hard for their money" argument. The super rich make most of their money from a combination of luck and inertia. The medium rich get a higher proportion of their income from actual work but would also be taxed less the super rich. No one's suggesting we take so much money away that actual work is discouraged.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What an amazing false dichotomy!
By "legislating the wealthy out of freedom," of course, this means taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. First, of course, is the fact that taking someone's money isn't the same as taking their freedom.
But of course, all income redistribution schemes are based on the idea that the rich are on the receiving end of a system that is inherently imbalanced. It's not possible to get rich without the cooperation of that system, and everyone else in the system gets shafted, because the rich are those who are in control of where the money goes.
So:
quote:When (less than) half of the people (the idle rich) get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them (because they own the corporations that the other half works for), and when the other half (the workers, who actually create wealth to start with) gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for (Because they aren't paid a living wage), that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
As they say: "Fixed that for ya!"
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to be a fervent Ayn Rand fan. Still am, but objectivism is the idealogical opposite of communism and is about as possible.
In her world, things were given value for value. Everyone who worked was given according to the value of their work. The rich were rich because htey did things of great value. The poor were poor because they didn't.
In our world, the rich are rich because they lie, philander, cheat, and steal. Very few actually do anything of value. Many of those who work, are not accorded their value.
You can drop the taxes on the rich when they start acting more like objectivists and less like slovenly swine.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
These are live maggots, remember.
