User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 77

  1. #61
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    While in a sense you are correct, perhaps we can focus on the important point that corruption seems to be much more pronounced in the presence of power. You know, like probability?
    It seems much more pronounced because of the scale of its manifestations. I don't think corruption is more common in the upper classes than it is in any other class; the difference is just the acts in which it is manifested. The more powerful you are, the larger the scale of the manifestations. I think it can be debated whether or not the trait of being corrupt is actually a contributing factor to how likely you are to become wealthy - if this is correct, then it is a reasonable assumption to say that the fraction of corrupt people (newcomers) in the upper classes is higher than that of any other class.

  2. #62
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You're right, there shouldn't be an arbitrary line. There should be a progressive taxation formula that adjusts with your income in a smooth curve.
    I was referring to Obama's last campaign stategy, when he said the people who make over $250K should pay more than their 'fair' share.

    I am not an economist or a statistician, but I do not agree with what you are saying. Each person should by default pay the same tax, then some should get deductions, as I referred to earlier. Not the other way around, imo.

    Why should those who make more have to pay more taxes?


    Do you think it is a fallacy to say that power corrupts?
    Yes. Power does not corrupt. But the corrupt seek power.

    Do you think it is a fallacy to say money brings power?
    No. The rich might have more power, but saying money, or the rich, is more likely to lead to a state of corruption is like saying bearing arms is likely to lead to war.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  3. #63
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I was referring to Obama's last campaign stategy, when he said the people who make over $250K should pay more than their 'fair' share.
    So who's decided what the fair share is?

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I am not an economist or a statistician, but I do not agree with what you are saying. Each person should by default pay the same tax, then some should get deductions, as I referred to earlier. Not the other way around, imo.

    Why should those who make more have to pay more taxes?
    The wealthy have more money. They have more of a resource to give, and they can lose more without a significant impact on their standard of living. A flat tax in a country that has as unequal a distribution of wealth as the USA will either extract too little revenue or put too many people into destitution. Tax breaks for the lower end will avert the latter an exacerbate the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Yes. Power does not corrupt. But the corrupt seek power.
    How about both?

    And anyhow, wouldn't that still be relevant? If rich people didn't become rich by accident, and money grants power, it would still suggest that rich people would be more corrupt. Granted, I think a lot of rich people do become rich practically by accident. By birth right, or dumb luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    No. The rich might have more power, but saying money, or the rich, is more likely to lead to a state of corruption is like saying bearing arms is likely to lead to war.
    First of all, this comes back to the effect of power. Let's say your character did not change because you were rich. It doesn't change the fact that the impact of your character is different. You can sacrifice more, and the things you do have more impact. Therefore, on account of the first point, if you became rich but gave up no more, you'd look more corrupt than you did before, and if you became rich and exercised the same kind of bad judgment you always had, the greater influence of that bad judgment would make you seem more corrupt. For me, I don't even care that much about personal character and I'm not looking for the right people because I think that's hopeless. The position of extreme relative wealth carries its own problems with it, regardless of who inhabits it.

    As for bearing arms leading to war? Well, I think someone could make a compelling case for that. Some have. The best argument against it would be that bearing arms also creates deterrence, but that argument has no real analog to wealth and corruption, does it?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #64
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Five stars and seven pages of thread success

  5. #65
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Five stars and seven pages of thread success
    One star. and this thread is crap.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  6. #66
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    So who's decided what the fair share is?
    My point was that going after the Super Rich is condoned by most because most are not the Super Rich, and there is a sort of feeling of justified revenge that fuels the masses into thinking somehow because someone is filthy rich (comparatively), they somehow owe it to society to pay more. To me this is completely unethical regarding individuals.


    The wealthy have more money. They have more of a resource to give, and they can lose more without a significant impact on their standard of living.
    So what. Are they using more resources? Are they demanding more from their local or state governments? Are they a burden on society? Probably not. Then why should they have to pay a higher percentage? In fact, they probably are less of a burden than a middle income family, with 5 kids, a Suburban, and a huge carbon footprint.

    A flat tax in a country that has as unequal a distribution of wealth as the USA will either extract too little revenue or put too many people into destitution. Tax breaks for the lower end will avert the latter an exacerbate the former.
    It costs a certain amount of money per individual to run federal, state, and local governments. There is a theoretical amount each individual (including children, which parents should be responsible for) would pay to keep government running smoothly and without debt. Divide out the ones who cannot pay because of legitimate reasons, and have the larger aggregate, who can pay their tax, share the burden evenly for those who cannot pay. Seems simple to me. Those who can pay help out those who cannot. In the citizens who can pay their taxes, the burden is shared evenly. No one group should have to assume the burden any more than any other group, just because they are more financially successful.



    How about both?
    The will to corrupt is a seed nestled in someone's soul. Power can provide the medium for it to grow, perhaps, but power itself does not corrupt.

    And anyhow, wouldn't that still be relevant? If rich people didn't become rich by accident, and money grants power, it would still suggest that rich people would be more corrupt. Granted, I think a lot of rich people do become rich practically by accident. By birth right, or dumb luck.
    Okay, Magic. Perhaps power, affluence, and corruption are variables likely to be correlated, but I deny that they necessarily, or even likely, have a causal relationship with corruption.


    First of all, this comes back to the effect of power. Let's say your character did not change because you were rich. It doesn't change the fact that the impact of your character is different. You can sacrifice more, and the things you do have more impact. Therefore, on account of the first point, if you became rich but gave up no more, you'd look more corrupt than you did before
    I think you'd just look selfish, not necessarily corrupt.

    , and if you became rich and exercised the same kind of bad judgment you always had, the greater influence of that bad judgment would make you seem more corrupt.
    What do you mean by bad judgment? Being corrupt? And why would you 'exercise the same kind of bad judgment you always had?' Who said bad judgment is more likely to make you rich? Seems unlikely. I'm confused. But, yeah, if your excessive amounts of money caused excessive amounts of damage, like say, a drug cartel, then I agree you would seem deservedly more corrupt.

    For me, I don't even care that much about personal character and I'm not looking for the right people because I think that's hopeless.
    Are you referring to leaders or politicians? I'm not following you here.

    The position of extreme relative wealth carries its own problems with it, regardless of who inhabits it.
    I never disputed that wealth promotes power...Just that wealth promotes corruption.

    As for bearing arms leading to war? Well, I think someone could make a compelling case for that. Some have. The best argument against it would be that bearing arms also creates deterrence, but that argument has no real analog to wealth and corruption, does it?
    Perhaps it isn't the best example. Weapons can be used to protect citizens, or they can be used to harm them. I can see this could be a great grey area to argue over. I'm trying to use the "Guns don't kill people, People do" analogy.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #67
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Five stars and seven pages of thread success
    Awww, you spoke too soon. (FTR, I didn't vote, I just came upon this thread again now when it was 1 star)

    Here's the response I drafted at lunch today

    "One man's "rich" is another man's "not rich enough"

    It's all relative. Another reason why I have some fundamental issues with the fundamental "we are the 99% premise". If we're talking about multibillionaires and companies that have more bankroll than the economy of certain small nations that's one thing but then there's the kid whose family drives the nice car and has a bigger TV than anyone else in school. Being 'rich' can mean having nice things and displaying them or having a pedigree and living a pretty humble life. Some people own liquor stores and laundry mats, others own casinos.

    Growing up partially outside the states I think I have an understanding of the notion of class similar probably (?) to how it's understood in the UK as well as in the states. The way class is defined and understood outside the states and Northern European countries is much more strict and clearly defined.

    I think for what the OP is asking there is also a distinction between people who have the mettle to make a fortune, people born into wealth, and people who come into wealth through circumstance later in life.

    This also reminds me of a quote by an heiress "there's a difference between privileged and spoiled" granted the article made her out to be plastic fantastic and spoiled so the quote is kind of a barb directed towards the cluelessness of the privileged AND spoiled.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...worth-80m.html

    Anywhoo, Lark, I think you meant "what do you think of the privileged class"? No?
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  8. #68
    Senior Member Munchies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Enneagram
    OMG sx
    Socionics
    iuno
    Posts
    474

    Default

    of course this thread sucks, it's ' how do you feel about the rich". It should've been called " What logical conclusion can you conclude about the rich". All im getting is feely bullshit answers and self rightiouse un speculated conclusions. a whole lot of blah blah blah
    1+1=3 OMFG

  9. #69
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    That song reflects perfectly how I feel about the rich:

    [youtube=KgkYrM_2ZKE]Money Honey -Lady Gaga (w/lyrics)[/youtube]
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  10. #70
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    Anywhoo, Lark, I think you meant "what do you think of the privileged class"? No?
    Perhaps, it is linked to corrupt exercise of power, although I was thinking specifically with reference to the idea that they could "buy and sell you" although that is relative again, some people who're really poor could sell their children into arranged marriages or prostitution.

    I always suspect that the law doesnt really apply to the rich though, that they can buy their way out of prosecution or accountability.

Similar Threads

  1. [SP] SPs, how do you feel about the forum name "Arthouse"?
    By skylights in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 04:44 PM
  2. How do you feel about the future of gaming?
    By uncommonentity in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 11:33 PM
  3. Guys: How do you feel about having a female doctor?
    By Giggly in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-26-2008, 03:26 PM
  4. How do you feel about your nation's corporations?
    By Ezra in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 02:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO