Eat the Rich

[Danoff]

A common theme that I have noticed in almost all types of people (including my own family) is that people have a tendancy to sacrifice the strong for the weak. I've seen parents offer more love to the kid having a hard time. I've seen politicians push taxes on those who can "afford" them to give the money to those who cannot. I've seen people descriminated against because they happen to have the color of skin that is culturally associated with success.

Does it make it morally correct to wrong people just because they can handle it? Is it more morally justified to steal from a rich man than a poor one?

At least one GTP member thinks that it's ok to commit at least one kind of injustice against at least one kind of strong:

When I say that someone who has lots of money (I'm talking about 6 figures or more income in pounds sterling) does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned) that's what I mean.

What do you think? Is this mentality morally reprehensible or is it justifiable to commit an injustice against someone just because they can survive the outcome.

 

[Joey D]

If I worked hard for my money and I earned it legally I shouldn't be treated any differently. I mean is my family rich, by some stardards yes. Do we give our money away? Yes a few thousand each each to different charity. But I don't think the rich should be punished for being rich.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I dont believe that any one group should recieve any kind of special treatment. However, if there comes a point in taxation where you must choose to tax a small group of rich people, or large group of poor people, you should tax the rich. Part of controlling a large amount of commercial power is knowing when it's time to let go of some to the government that helped you legally attain it.

 

[Famine]

Once again you tell me what I think. And yet you claim I'm the arrogant one.

Do you have a dictionary to hand? Look up "sympathy".

 

[Duke]

Once again you tell me what I think. And yet you claim I'm the arrogant one.

You know, Famine, you're doing your part to prolong this needlessly as well.

When I say that someone who has lots of money (I'm talking about 6 figures or more income in pounds sterling) does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned) that's what I mean.

You're insisting he's telling you what you think. He's not. He's specifically limited his use of the word "injustice" to one particular portion of your words. He's posting words you yourself wrote and insist should be taken at face value. Either refute the second parenthetical clause in your quote above, or give it a rest.

Explain how someone being denied fairly earned money is not an injustice and does not deserve sympathy - regardless of the net worth of that person.

 

[Famine]

Looks like he's telling me exactly what I think.

At least one GTP member thinks that it's ok to commit at least one kind of injustice against at least one kind of strong:

Do I think that? Really? Injustice or not does not concern me - who am I to decide the nature of injustice? I've not referred to injustices in this argument (except one sarcastic inverted commas moment) since I do not believe I have the right to decide what is an injustice and what is not.

The key word was "sympathy" which seems ill-defined in this case. Perhaps you and danoff (not restricted to you two) have a different understanding of the word than I (not restricted to me either) do. Websters.com certainly doesn't (ignoring the meanings which refer to co-operation).

I would understand if someone in the "case" described above (which I'll add was a clarification to a specific instance danoff interpreted as "the conclusion that you don't think they earned their money - is evidenced by the fact that you wouldn't feel sorry for them if they didn't get what they were charging and the use of the word "given" in your original post where word "paid" makes more sense") felt that they themselves were victims of injustice, or were upset at it, but I would not feel sympathy. That's almost as condescending as it gets. Perhaps you would think that's semantics. Perhaps you're right.

Either way, this is my definitive final line on this "discussion". Constructive debate cannot occur between danoff and I on this issue. However, I would appreciate not being compared with people who discriminated against others "because they happen to have the color of skin that is culturally associated with success".

 

[Danoff]

However, if there comes a point in taxation where you must choose to tax a small group of rich people, or large group of poor people, you should tax the rich.

Does this point always come? Has America reached that point? And why is it the solution to tax a small group of the population higher rather than reduce the size of the government?

Is this morally justified? - taxing one group more than another. Is it fair?

Do rich people use more government services than poor people? No. They use less.

 

[Danoff]

Famine,

Why not respond to the topic at hand?

Do you think that it is morally correct for a rich person to not receive money that they earned?

 

[87chevy]

danoff please give a very specific definition of earned include an example if possible. Because in my opion, most rich people don't earn ****! they sit on there butts, and the money just roles on in. maybe they have to sign some paperwork once an a while. so please define EARN.

 

[Famine]

I was about to respond to the subject at hand, only I thought it was "Does it make it morally correct to wrong people just because they can handle it? Is it more morally justified to steal from a rich man than a poor one?"


I am curious about healthcare.

In the UK we have a system of income tax. The first £4600 a year you earn is tax free. The next £1500 a year you earn is taxed at 10%. Anything over £7100 up to £36,000 is taxed at 22%. Anything over that is taxed at 40%. We also pay National Insurance at 5%. Someone who earns three times my salary pays three times the NI, but a little over 4.3 times the income tax (due to some being in the 40% band). This all goes to the Exchequer and is used to pay for... well... everything, including the National Health Service. The National Health Service gives everyone free health care. I will add that you can, if you can afford it, pay for private treatment which will probably be quicker and better, due to charging more and thus being better equipped.

In the United States (and please correct me if I'm wrong - I do not know much about the USA's healthcare system, other than what I can glean from US programmes), people who can afford health insurance get health care. Everyone else gets a bare minimum - ER care pretty much covers it.


Which system is more fair/more unjust? Taxing the rich more, as they can afford it better, to give healthcare to all, or providing better healthcare to only those who can afford it?


As an aside, the notion of helping the weak at the expense of the strong is humanity. We are no longer bound by the rules of natural selection. More human animals survive than ought to (meaning that previously they'd have died, rather than that they SHOULD die) because of cleaner foods, water, environment and, yes, medical advances. Allowing only the strong to survive and letting the weak perish - metaphorically - advances us as animals. Allowing all to survive, and even thrive, is the only way to allow us to advance as humans. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

 

[Danoff]

Famine,

You didn't answer the question

Which system is more fair/more unjust? Taxing the rich more, as they can afford it better, to give healthcare to all, or providing better healthcare to only those who can afford it?

Providing healthcare to only those who can afford it is more fair and just. Those who have earned enough money to pay for services are the ones who should get them. Stealing from those who have earned enough to provide a service to those who have not earned it is not fair or just. That kind of thing should be left voluntary in the form of charity.

please give a very specific definition of earned include an example if possible.

Money obtained in a free exchange of goods or services.

Because in my opion, most rich people don't earn ****! they sit on there butts, and the money just roles on in. maybe they have to sign some paperwork once an a while. so please define EARN.

Most rich people sit on their butts and allow their money to earn money for them. They invest money and earn the interest. That is a valid way of earning money, one which I hope to do and which we all must hope to do in order to pay for our retirements.

 

[Famine]

Famine,

You didn't answer the question

In accordance with neon_duke's request, I will not engage in the discussion from the previous thread. I am answering the questions brought up in the first post of this thread (caveat #1: "Providing we stick to the topic").

Providing healthcare to only those who can afford it is more fair and just. Those who have earned enough money to pay for services are the ones who should get them. Stealing from those who have earned enough to provide a service to those who have not earned it is not fair or just. That kind of thing should be left voluntary in the form of charity.

I see. Are you saying that those who do not earn enough (like, say, cleaners and their kind) or who cannot earn (those who have disabilites which prevent them from working) do not deserve any medical treatment that they cannot pay for?

 

[///M-Spec]

danoff please give a very specific definition of earned include an example if possible. Because in my opion, most rich people don't earn ****! they sit on there butts, and the money just roles on in. maybe they have to sign some paperwork once an a while. so please define EARN.

If it were possible to make loads of money just buy sitting on your ass, why does anyone go to work?


M

 

[Famine]

If it were possible to make money loads of money just buy sitting on your ass, why does anyone go to work?

Come to the UK - at one extreme we have those who are just unwilling to work, who get paid £46 a week by the state (along with a number of incapable of working and currently unemployed - disability allowance is higher though), and at the other we have more landed gentry than you can shake a stick at. We have a famous girl called Tara Palmer-Tompkinson, and she's only famous for being at parties - she lives off her family's money and land (and she's not alone). The only thing she's done to get the money is be born.

She's likable enough though.

 

[///M-Spec]

In the UK we have a system of income tax. The first £4600 a year you earn is tax free. The next £1500 a year you earn is taxed at 10%. Anything over £7100 up to £36,000 is taxed at 22%. Anything over that is taxed at 40%.

Christ. No one we kicked you people out of our country 200 years ago.

Just kidding.


M

 

[Danoff]

In accordance with neon_duke's request, I will not engage in the discussion from the previous thread. I am answering the questions brought up in the first post of this thread (caveat #1: "Providing we stick to the topic").

The question, asked in this thread (for the 3rd time now) is:

Do you think that it is morally correct for a rich person to not receive money that they earned?

You've talked around that subject but never answered it directly.

 

[///M-Spec]

We have a famous girl called Tara Palmer-Tompkinson, and she's only famous for being at parties - she lives off her family's money and land (and she's not alone). The only thing she's done to get the money is be born.

Sounds totally hot. Is she single?

To answer your healthcare question, Famine, there is no baseline coverage for everyone. The federal government will contribute a certain amount if you have an employer who splits the costs. But no, if you are a complete bum, your only recourse is a 'free clinic' that runs off donations and other government subsidies.

In fact, it is a big issue in America that we are the only industrized country that doesn't have universal coverage. You would be correct to guess that people like me, Duke and Danoff are not thrilled at all about getting it.


M

 

[Famine]

The question, asked in this thread (for the 3rd time now) is:

Not in the first post. Well, at least not until you go and edit it in.

You've talked around that subject but never answered it directly.

Drat. What a shame, eh? But, as Duke says, if one of us doesn't stop, the "discussion" will never stop. Carry on by yourself though, by all means.

You're not going to answer my question either then, I guess. (Edit: *Austin Powers* I guessed wrong... */Austin Powers*)

///M-Spec - there are people other than "complete bums" who cannot pay for private health insurance. I can't believe that any civilised society would deny a disabled man even prescription pain relief medication.

 

[Danoff]

I see. Are you saying that those who do not earn enough (like, say, cleaners and their kind) or who cannot earn (those who have disabilites which prevent them from working) do not deserve any medical treatment that they cannot pay for?

Yup. If they can't afford the doctor's time, why should he be force to give it to them or why should anyone else be forced to afford it for them?

Sure they can offer it freely, but forcing others to provide it is immoral.

If you provide "free" healthcare for everyone it forces some people to pay quite a bit (which means it's not free afterall). Neither forcing people to pay or forcing people to work sits well with me and those two ways are the only ways to give healthcare to people who don't deserve it (ie: don't have enough money to pay for it).

 

[Danoff]

Drat. What a shame, eh? But, as Duke says, if one of us doesn't stop, the "discussion" will never stop. Carry on by yourself though, by all means.

I don't know what you're talking about. The topic of this thread is do you or do you not think it is immoral to sacrifice the strong for the weak - which you have not directly answered. I don't see why we should stop talking about the topic of this thread.

 

[Famine]

I don't know what you're talking about.

That is the problem, really.

The topic of this thread is do you or do you not think it is immoral to sacrifice the strong for the weak - which you have not directly answered. I don't see why we should stop talking about the topic of this thread.

I think it's wrong to sacrifice anyone for anyone else.


So, schools.

Should children born to poorer parents not be allowed a public education? If tax pays for the teacher's time and the parents pay no tax, should the child be educated at the expense of tax payers?

How about emergency services? Should the fire department carry out a background check before attending the scene, in case they arrive at a non-tax-payers burning residence?


The only person who deserves healthcare is an ill person. If I were a doctor I could not, in all conscience, see a dying cancer-sufferer (sorry for the emotive disease, but I know what I'm talking about here) wracked with pain and not administer diamorphine to ease it. I wouldn't check their wallet first.

There is a medical technique known as "triage", the approximate definition of which is to determine which patients need care the most and treating them in order of need. Money doesn't come into it.

Would a disabled non-tax-payer with a gushing head wound come below a senator with an ingrowing toenail in "money triage"?

 

[///M-Spec]

///M-Spec - there are people other than "complete bums" who cannot pay for private health insurance. I can't believe that any civilised society would deny a disabled man even prescription pain relief medication.

Well, we're not COMPLETELY heartless over here. We have tons of subsidized healthcare benefits for senior citizens, disabled persons, single parent families, wounded veterans and so forth. Some of these programs I even support. Truly disabled persons are deserving of govenment aid. Wounded combat veterans certainly are as well. But welfare mothers with 6 kids and no job can just suck my arse.

I just don't support a universal "no matter what, you will get the same care as everyone else" system. Not only do I have moral reservations about it, I have grave doubts to the effectiveness of such a system. In addition, behind EVERY legislated government activity, some politican's nitwit nephew or brother in law always makes a killing at the tax payer's expense.


M

 

[Famine]

In addition, behind EVERY legislated government activity, some politican's nitwit nephew or brother in law always makes a killing at the tax payer's expense.

Well, that's certainly true. Although if it's not specifically illegal, he's earned his money and can get better healthcare...

The problem with phrases like "welfare mothers with 6 kids and no job can just suck my arse." (incidentally, kudos on not saying ass... ) is that, whilst it's very easy to agree, we aren't privy to the whole story. She could be a traumatised raped victim, forced to bear the first child by an oppressive family and skimming from man-to-man as a result of this childhood pain. She could be a trailer-park kid who never had a future and dropped sextuplets in her first marriage - the stress of which made her husband leave. Or she could be a scrounging slag. I wouldn't ask her to fill out a form before treating her arthritis...

 

[87chevy]

I can't believe that any civilised society would deny a disabled man even prescription pain relief medication.

I can't believe it either. Apparently danoff believes the strong should just wipe out the weak because they are worthless and have no value what so ever, they are just dragging the rest of us down. THOSE BASTARDS!!! DAMN THEM FOR BEING POOR AND/OR DISABLED!!!!!

 

[Famine]

Well, it's certainly true that the planet is approaching a dangerous level of population - best estimates say that our current agricultural ability would only support 9 billion people (we're due there in 2030), although nothing is mentioned about the kind of waste 9 billion people produce. Sure, we're advancing in technology - and many of the genetic advances in plant agriculture are specifically designed to aid poorer regions of the world, by making plants more able to grow in harsher conditions, increasing the agricultural output of the planet as a whole.

 

[87chevy]

Well, we're not COMPLETELY heartless over here. We have tons of subsidized healthcare benefits for senior citizens, disabled persons, single parent families, wounded veterans and so forth. Some of these programs I even support.
M

ah come on! most of those benefits are a JOKE! If we took away the power of senators and reps to pay themselves what ever they want from OUR money, that would surely free up some funding to make a more effective Medicare and Veteran health care.

 

[87chevy]

That is the problem, really.



I think it's wrong to sacrifice anyone for anyone else.


So, schools.

Should children born to poorer parents not be allowed a public education? If tax pays for the teacher's time and the parents pay no tax, should the child be educated at the expense of tax payers?

How about emergency services? Should the fire department carry out a background check before attending the scene, in case they arrive at a non-tax-payers burning residence?


The only person who deserves healthcare is an ill person. If I were a doctor I could not, in all conscience, see a dying cancer-sufferer (sorry for the emotive disease, but I know what I'm talking about here) wracked with pain and not administer diamorphine to ease it. I wouldn't check their wallet first.

There is a medical technique known as "triage", the approximate definition of which is to determine which patients need care the most and treating them in order of need. Money doesn't come into it.

Would a disabled non-tax-payer with a gushing head wound come below a senator with an ingrowing toenail in "money triage"?

Hooray! Great points! I fully agree! 👍 👍

oh, and as to your overpopulation statement, famine, don't worry, Mother Earth will shed itself of the human plague when she's absolutely had enough. Or well just wipe ourselves out. Either way, the human race is due for a slap in the face.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's wrong to sacrifice anyone for anyone else.

Yet you advocate the sacrifice of the strong for the weak when you say that an ill person deserves health care.

So, schools.

Should children born to poorer parents not be allowed a public education? If tax pays for the teacher's time and the parents pay no tax, should the child be educated at the expense of tax payers?

I don't agree with the idea of public schools. I think all schools should be privately run.

How about emergency services? Should the fire department carry out a background check before attending the scene, in case they arrive at a non-tax-payers burning residence?

Some things the government is actually good for. Emergency services like the fire department and the ER are examples of that. Another example is the military.

The areas where government should play a role are the areas where private organizations can't (due to the nature of the problem) or won't address the problem.

I have no problem with the way emergency rooms run, and I have no problem with the fire department, the police department, the military, or military research.

 

[87chevy]

Yet you advocate the sacrifice of the strong for the weak when you say that an ill person deserves health care.



I don't agree with the idea of public schools. I think all schools should be privately run.



Some things the government is actually good for. Emergency services like the fire department and the ER are examples of that. Another example is the military.

The areas where government should play a role are the areas where private organizations can't (due to the nature of the problem) or won't address the problem.

I have no problem with the way emergency rooms run, and I have no problem with the fire department, the police department, the military, or military research.

so basically you have no problem with things that benefit you, or the services the government provides that you can't afford? oh, and no child should have the right to a free education.... wow why didn't i realize that before! i'm soo stupid!

 

[Famine]

Yet you advocate the sacrifice of the strong for the weak when you say that an ill person deserves health care.

Yyyyeah. Not really seeing that one. If you are ill, you deserve to be treated. You were born, like everyone else, you live, like everyone else, and you'll die eventually, like everyone else. If you suddenly contract

How is providing health care for your fellow man a "sacrifice"? No "strong" (rich) people were killed in the making of the NHS for the benefit of everyone in the UK. Some "weak" (poor) people never use the NHS at all - are they subsidising any rich person that does use it by not using up their allowed treatment value?

Do you advocate the sacrifice of the weak for the strong?

I don't agree with the idea of public schools. I think all schools should be privately run.

So that only those who can afford it get an education?

Some things the government is actually good for. Emergency services like the fire department and the ER are examples of that. Another example is the military.

The areas where government should play a role are the areas where private organizations can't (due to conflict of interest) or won't address the problem.

Would a privately run Fire Department have any more conflict of interest than privately run Hospitals?


I've got to know. Do you think that rich people are better than poor people? Does their money give them better judgement, better morals and make a better human being?