Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay. Who gets to define "compassion" and "ethics?" Who has the right to force other people to be compassionate and ethical? Are these things not personal choices?
What about motivation? If people aren't free to pursue their ideas with the hope of unlimited "rewards," why even take the time and energy to innovate?
The reward doesn't have to be unlimited to motivate. I keep saying that millionaires are fine. It's hundreds of millions and billions that won't work.
I don't think "utopia" is the right word for this scenario, but you are correct that it is probably the only way this scenario could possibly happen without complete economic collapse.
The reward doesn't have to be unlimited to motivate. I keep saying that millionaires are fine. It's hundreds of millions and billions that won't work.
How do you know? Maybe some people are only motivated by unlimited rewards. Even in your scenario, those that have millions will still seem excessively wealthy to those in poverty.
How would you explain (and excuse) those that have millions to those struggling to pay a $50 electric bill?
It's all relative. Those millions will seem unethical and lacking compassion if you ask the right person.
I like the fact that someone can move up in socioeconomic class in a capitalist system. If I work hard enough and meet the right people, I have the potential to live among the upper class. Why should I give up my ability to rise in class? If I ever do become rich, why should I give away MY earnings to someone who has not earned them? I wouldn't mind my taxes going towards infrastructure and other improvements/expansions to shared items, such as roads, but why should my money go towards the way others live their lives. This is why I dislike socialism. I don't think that the wealthy should be FORCED to subsidize the lower classes.
I believe socialism does not require tyranny. It just requires a progressive income tax based on all income from all sources combined with a negative tax sufficient to allow all the population to be reasonably satisfied consumers. The biggest problems with our systems is the upper level taxes are far too little and welfare is too small to let the lower classes be successful consumers.
As more and more production will be done by unpaid robots in highly automated farms and factories something will be needed to provide for enough consumer income to afford to buy the products. This will frustrate the "everyday I get better and better" crowd but is far more peaceful and realistic than a stagnated society where a few owners live in fabulous wealth and the rest of the people wonder how to pay for supper let alone buy a fancy telephone from the robot factory.
How do you know? Maybe some people are only motivated by unlimited rewards. Even in your scenario, those that have millions will still seem excessively wealthy to those in poverty.
How would you explain (and excuse) those that have millions to those struggling to pay a $50 electric bill?
It's all relative. Those millions will seem unethical and lacking compassion if you ask the right person.
Poverty would not exist, so your last question and statement make no sense in that context.
If some people are too greedy to accept an upper limit, they will have the safety net to keep them from starving until the tantrum is done. Plenty of people would be happy to work within the structure. A system that favors the moneyed minority is the problem being resolved. The new system would not pander to the problem child of the current one.
I like the fact that someone can move up in socioeconomic class in a capitalist system. If I work hard enough and meet the right people, I have the potential to live among the upper class. Why should I give up my ability to rise in class? If I ever do become rich, why should I give away MY earnings to someone who has not earned them? I wouldn't mind my taxes going towards infrastructure and other improvements/expansions to shared items, such as roads, but why should my money go towards the way others live their lives. This is why I dislike socialism. I don't think that the wealthy should be FORCED to subsidize the lower classes.
And that is exactly what happened to me. Born into a lower middle class if not poor family I was able to move up the income ladder to upper class. While climbing the income ladder it was my decision to take that opportunity to build my wealth. One thing I did learn that as I climbed the income ladder our government has a progressive income tax (the more you make the more they take) that makes building wealth harder.
The system works against us every day Americans building wealth and socialist minded support it.
I like the fact that someone can move up in socioeconomic class in a capitalist system. If I work hard enough and meet the right people, I have the potential to live among the upper class. Why should I give up my ability to rise in class? If I ever do become rich, why should I give away MY earnings to someone who has not earned them? I wouldn't mind my taxes going towards infrastructure and other improvements/expansions to shared items, such as roads, but why should my money go towards the way others live their lives. This is why I dislike socialism. I don't think that the wealthy should be FORCED to subsidize the lower classes.
As I climbed the income ladder and aside from learning that government makes it harder to build wealth, I learned something else... when we are able to provide for ourselves in the now and build our wealth, human nature makes us want to help those who are struggling but not just anyone. I don't want to throw money at people who think they are entitled to it, will be in line month after month, people who won't do anything to help themselves move in the right direction. I enjoy helping people who are trying but just need that little helping hand to get them "moving in the right direction", just a little to help dig them out instead of treading water to survive. If after that, they take a dive back in the water and make wrong moves I've lost interest. I also believe in helping the elderly and the disabled, they can be such a joy and the fact that their bodies no longer function the way they wish is part of life. Help them keep dignity.
Forcing me to give to anyone just because they exist is not something I am in the least bit interested in doing. And for people to think they "deserve" what I've earned, that doesn't go over well with me at all.
I believe socialism does not require tyranny. It just requires a progressive income tax based on all income from all sources combined with a negative tax sufficient to allow all the population to be reasonably satisfied consumers. The biggest problems with our systems is the upper level taxes are far too little and welfare is too small to let the lower classes be successful consumers.
Progressive income tax... the perfect way to keep people who are willing to work to increase their income so they too can build wealth, progressive income tax keeps them down, period.
Basically, anyone who believes in progressive income tax is supporting a tax code that makes it harder to keep money that can be put aside to build wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
