Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Sorry, I'll try.

    A tiny percentage of the world controls a huge amount of the world's cash.
    These people tend to own huge corporations etc.
    The average person helps them by buying their products, using thir services, etc.
    This helps poverty remain as it would be more fair if we refused to use their companies unless all their workers were paid fairly (which of course they are not).
    But this would mean we would have to pay much more for the product, therefore we would rather buy cheap(ish) even though it maintains poverty.
    When presented with a choice, the consumer normally does side with the more ethically sound companies. The problem is that most of the time your choice is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Say you want a new phone, your choices are what? Apple? Samsung? Nokia? Blackberry? You need a new car, Ford? Vauxhall? and so on. If this was one specific company or one specific market then maybe a boycott would work, but its not, is capitalism in general.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    There is nothing wrong with inheriting it either. Someone clearly has earnt it for one to inherit it.
    It isn't a question of it being intrinsically 'wrong', but of the moral effects on the person. Many people who inherit large wealth do not use it well, experience severe adverse effects or 'fritter it away' - many of these situations occur because the intrinsic moral position of the large inheritor is highly dubious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    You don't need a TV, you could wear 2nd hand clothes, you don't need internet access. Do you? No. Everyone wants a better life and more assets, a lot of people put extreme amounts of blood, sweat and tears into making their money, who is anyone to tell them what to do with it?
    There is no comparison between the basics and necessities that we have to entertain, educate and allow us to live with dignity, compared with mansions, supercars, yachts and second mansions.

    I'm not asking the mega rich to give up their wealth because others haven't achieved what they have. I simply hope that once they have reached the dizzy heights of being CEOs, majority shareholders and chair people, that they remember those who are down and out. Fortunately, we live in a world where the likes of Gates and Buffett do think of others.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not if earned honestly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It isn't a question of it being intrinsically 'wrong', but of the moral effects on the person. Many people who inherit large wealth do not use it well, experience severe adverse effects or 'fritter it away' - many of these situations occur because the intrinsic moral position of the large inheritor is highly dubious.
    But at the end of the day the person who made that wealth has designated it to that person. They may waste it, but isn't that their choice to make?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 321zero)
    There is no comparison between the basics and necessities that we have to entertain, educate and allow us to live with dignity, compared with mansions, supercars, yachts and second mansions.

    I'm not asking the mega rich to give up their wealth because others haven't achieved what they have. I simply hope that once they have reached the dizzy heights of being CEOs, majority shareholders and chair people, that they remember those who are down and out. Fortunately, we live in a world where the likes of Gates and Buffett do think of others.
    They are in a tiny minority. As a percentage, fewer rich people are philanthropic than other strata of society and rich people on average give a lower percentage of their income away to charity than do poorer people. In addition, more wealthy people support political causes that seek to cement their wealthy status and prevent others joining it than causes that seek the opposite.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arkhamz)
    Sure is jealousy in here
    Wanting to see the huge inequality gap close up doesn't necessarily make us jealous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 321zero)
    There is no comparison between the basics and necessities that we have to entertain, educate and allow us to live with dignity, compared with mansions, supercars, yachts and second mansions.

    I'm not asking the mega rich to give up their wealth because others haven't achieved what they have. I simply hope that once they have reached the dizzy heights of being CEOs, majority shareholders and chair people, that they remember those who are down and out. Fortunately, we live in a world where the likes of Gates and Buffett do think of others.
    Yeah some are extremely generous, some are not. Just like us 'normal' people, we might not be able to donate millions but some would help someone collapsed in the street, some would walk past.

    You don't need a TV or new clothes for 'dignity' nor are they 'necessities.'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    Yeah some are extremely generous, some are not. Just like us 'normal' people, we might not be able to donate millions but some would help someone collapsed in the street, some would walk past.

    You don't need a TV or new clothes for 'dignity' nor are they 'necessities.'
    I didn't say you needed them. I say they are the basics. You made a silly comparison. A person wanting to wear new clothes has nothing to do with the mega rich and their moral responsibilities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, you'd be a bit of b*****d to be sitting on £10m when there are starving kids in Africa.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    But at the end of the day the person who made that wealth has designated it to that person. They may waste it, but isn't that their choice to make?
    It's better for society as a whole for the state to intervene and prevent the massive concentration of wealth in a few families that inevitably results from untaxed inheritance. Societies based on the massive aristocratic concentration of super-wealth in a few hands are almost always prone to degeneracy and collapse. Examples about throughout history.

    We should oppose moves to reduce taxes on inheritance and there should also be taxes on wealth, given that much wealth in our society is effectively unearned, even by those working in wealth-factories like investment banks, who in many cases owe their situation more to luck, contacts, unearned advantages, etc, than to intrinsic merit.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    Yeah some are extremely generous, some are not. Just like us 'normal' people, we might not be able to donate millions but some would help someone collapsed in the street, some would walk past.

    You don't need a TV or new clothes for 'dignity' nor are they 'necessities.'
    New clothes when the old ones have worn out are - as are warm clothes in winter. Just by casual observation, it appears that many people now cannot afford the latter in particular.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoopyLinguist)
    Yeah, you'd be a bit of b*****d to be sitting on £10m when there are starving kids in Africa.
    Yet this is exactly what most people do who have more than £10m spare. Go figure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's better for society as a whole for the state to intervene and prevent the massive concentration of wealth in a few families that inevitably results from untaxed inheritance. Societies based on the massive aristocratic concentration of super-wealth in a few hands are almost always prone to degeneracy and collapse. Examples about throughout history.

    We should oppose moves to reduce taxes on inheritance and there should also be taxes on wealth, given that much wealth in our society is effectively unearned, even by those working in wealth-factories like investment banks, who in many cases owe their situation more to luck, contacts, unearned advantages, etc, than to intrinsic merit.
    There are already taxes on wealth, 45% of income, inheritance tax of around 40% etc.. Yes some might get around these taxes, but so do many who are less wealthy.

    All that will happen with a wealth tax, as shown by France is people who feel they are already paying their far share (Lets face it, some members of the super rich pay as much in tax as a town) will simply get up and go. Maybe overall you would increase tax revenues as the majority would stay but you would also lose some of the smartest minds and best innovators who have the means to set up the next big thing, which they would then do elsewhere.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You're arguing that Apple stole Bill Gates's ideas? Seriously??
    Yeah. Jobs was notorious for ripping off other people's ideas.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Yeah. Jobs was notorious for ripping off other people's ideas.
    Not from Microsoft though, they both stole from Xerox but Gates didn't have anything Jobs wanted.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I have to wonder whether you've considered the repercussions of this assertion.

    Consider if we can the great Elon Musk who sold PayPal to Ebay for a couple of hundred million. Now surely you would consider him too rich and confiscate his wealth via tax or some such. But now consider what he did with that money, he first created Tesla which until now has made a loss. He used all of his personal savings to make Space X work (had you taken his money to a large degree he probably wouldn't have been able to do this) and he has since created Solar City. His net worth now is estimated to be around $2bn.

    Surely you see here that some people actually do good things with their money. Had you taken a large degree of his wealth then you would have damaged your own environmental goals. He is building charging stations powered by solar panels which will provide free charging for Tesla drivers (this could make electric cars massive), he is doing missions for NASA and he is one of the largest providers of solar electricity. If some of the more extreme left had their way then he would not have been able to achieve the later two and Tesla may not have being able to last long enough to produce profit.

    I can understand the arguments against inherited wealth but you have no idea whether somebody will use their money for further "exploitation" or something beneficial.
    Firstly, people such as Elon Musk are clearly the exception - most rich people are not funding enterprises to the benefit of all humanity. Secondly, even if he is contributing to technological development, his $2bn could be saving millions of people. Extreme wealth for the few in the face of extreme poverty for the many is just an unacceptable way to structure a society. Humans deserve a certain standard of living and it is fundamentally wrong to permit so many of them to needlessly die in preventable ways.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    There are already taxes on wealth, 45% of income, inheritance tax of around 40% etc.. Yes some might get around these taxes, but so do many who are less wealthy.

    All that will happen with a wealth tax, as shown by France is people who feel they are already paying their far share (Lets face it, some members of the super rich pay as much in tax as a town) will simply get up and go. Maybe overall you would increase tax revenues as the majority would stay but you would also lose some of the smartest minds and best innovators who have the means to set up the next big thing, which they would then do elsewhere.
    On your first point, income tax is not a wealth tax.

    There are much smarter methods of wealth taxing than the ones used in France. The most obvious is already available - revalue council tax bands to take account of the surge in value of expensive houses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    Not if earned honestly.
    How does one do that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I took a class at uni and I had a similar discussion with my teacher. I personally believe that celebrities should have an upper limit and my argument was that footballers and singers/actors etc shouldn't earn more than doctors or firefighters because saving lifes is more important. His argument was for movies or for football, the viewers pay maybe 10 pounds to watch, whereas if you take a GPs salary and divide it by the number of patients seen, it would be a lot more than 10 pounds per person even though you don't pay it yourself. Although I don't know if that still stands for fire fighters or soliders :/ You may be interested in Michael Sandler, some of his lectures raise fascinating points

    http://www.justiceharvard.org/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.