People feel really entitled to what they earned, because, they earned it. The thing is, their ability to earn it is predicated on society being set up in such a way that the resources available to them make that path of earning possible. It's hardly unreasonable to think that one should pay extra back to society to accommodate that.
the author complains that the stock market is up since its lows and labels that as fat cats getting rich again.
> It is not right that society’s richest people profit from this crisis while millions fall into desperate poverty. I include myself in this.
there is an easy way to start rectifying this injustice, if the author truly believes it is not fair. He can donate his wealth to the government - yes that is a thing. Will he do it? After all he argues it is fundamentally unfair. Writing an editorial is just talk, time he does the walk.
Ah yes, because a millionaire is gonna make a dent in the multi-trillion dollar deficit. No. What will help fix wealth inequality is not donations from rich people; it’s the government. There’s more non-philanthropic rich people than philanthropic ones.
1) The "easy way" is not the same as the "correct and effective way".
2) He's young, retired, enormously wealthy, and can do anything he wants. But still donated his time/energy to help educate people about wealth inequality. To you, it may be "just talk" but he's already doing way more than 99.9% of people in his position.
So he will preach about wealth inequality but won't go and give his wealth to the poor, but will instead donate his time and energy telling everyone how other wealthy people should pay more.
That is a poor argument and not even really correct. He is advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy which would indeed take away from his own wealth. You can't expect people to sacrifice themselves completely to help others when the necessary changes are systemic and not individual.
it will show if he is serious about saying it "is not fair"
Imagine you are in a position when something happens that you believe is unfair and you have a way to reduce that unfairness, even just a tiny bit. Wouldn't you do it?
Would you only write an editorial and not rectify it?
This guy is saying taxing the rich is the solution, but the problem is the way governments try to stimulate the economy. By lowering rates and supplying money to the rich, they make the rich richer more than they stimulate the economy.
The income tax just barely services the national debt, IIRC. None of it goes to pay for any services. The whole thing is very ugly. There's a great infograph "Death and Taxes" that shows where the budget goes (not what pays for it, or anything about black budgets), good start. The whole "my taxes pay for" meme is just off. Your taxes just service some numbered debt. It's depressing to think about.
18 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 48.9 ms ] threadI just did an internet search, and it's called "crab mentality" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
> While any one crab could easily escape, its efforts will be undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise.
> It is not right that society’s richest people profit from this crisis while millions fall into desperate poverty. I include myself in this.
there is an easy way to start rectifying this injustice, if the author truly believes it is not fair. He can donate his wealth to the government - yes that is a thing. Will he do it? After all he argues it is fundamentally unfair. Writing an editorial is just talk, time he does the walk.
If he said that the would not mind paying more for taxes, that is ok.
Saying "it is not fair" is just populist BS - would you keep money that you honestly thought was given unfairly to you?
Think: a sincere declaration of a willingness to cooperatively sacrifice to solve a group problem, if others do too.
Don't think: an offer to individually self-immolate, which would not solve the problem. That is a straw man test of whether someone "means" business.
1) The "easy way" is not the same as the "correct and effective way".
2) He's young, retired, enormously wealthy, and can do anything he wants. But still donated his time/energy to help educate people about wealth inequality. To you, it may be "just talk" but he's already doing way more than 99.9% of people in his position.
Imagine you are in a position when something happens that you believe is unfair and you have a way to reduce that unfairness, even just a tiny bit. Wouldn't you do it?
Would you only write an editorial and not rectify it?
It would also lead by example. If others followed him, he would have helped the lives of many times that.