Do we have the right to tax people in order to help the poor?

[Systematic]

I am systematic with regard to truth finding. That also applies to ethics, since it has an epistemological side as well. My system is as follows:

Step 1: Move to a more important topic.
Step 2: Make statements concerning that important topic.
Step 3: Turn those statements into questions.
Step 4: Make those questions more enlightened--less biased and more generalized.
Step 5: Give several answers to those more enlightened questions.
Step 6: Break the answers into parts.
Step 7: Expand and debate those parts.
Step 8: Prove/disprove as many parts as possible.
Step 9: Estimate the veracity of all parts not hitherto proven/disproven.
Step 10: Put all true answers into action.
Step 11: Repeat actions to form habits.
Step 12: Refine habits unto mastery.

Edit: You may have noticed that in the system, the ethics follow truth--not the reverse.

[prof]

What's more important than getting our priorities straight?

What is more important than contributing toward the aim of providing a quality life for people?

If you could do it for even one individual other than yourself, wouldn't that be a contribution?

In previous writings I have suggested tentative answers to those questions given above.

By demonstrating how those answers follow from the definition (of Ethics) and from the Axiom (the first principle of Ethics) I have estimated the veracity of those questions and what they imply, or even gone so far as to prove (statements entailed by) them.


Why don't you join in the fun of doing so for more of the implications of this new paradigm, this theory named Ethics for the 21st Century

You are invited to participate ...in finding truth in this area !!!!

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is no co-incidence that the advent of broad based and progressive taxation, fair wages and labour protection law was accompanied by the greatest boom in technology and progress since the birth of Rome.

What Rome achieved for the few with slaves, the left-wing labour movements of the mid Victorian age to the late 20thC achieved by enriching the poor.
There is no point making technical goodies, if the poor are too poor to buy the goods. Low level demand fuelled the economic miracle of the 20thC.

Austerity is turning back the clock, and corruption is blatant.
Promoting more inequality is not even disguises these days. George Osborn is currently planing to sell off the people's share of RBS to all his mates in the city for loss to the taxpayer.
Where is your rage?

[Vor]

Ned wrote:

Well, I am biased on this issue, because I am one of the poor and live on a very modest government pension. We are listed way under the poverty line and, without the extra income from our small online book business, we would barely manage.

You are one of the lucky ones, take a look at what real poverty is.

http://www.photosensitive.com/homeless-images.php

[prof]

Let's not get away from the topic question.

The consensus here seems to be: Yes, the government has the right to tax people in order to help the poor.

No loopholes in tax policy that help the super-rich are being closed. Money talks.

Those who have the gold are making the rules.

Only a movement of people getting into the streets, or dominating the media attention as occurred in the women's movement, will influence politicians to make any changes in public policy.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcRAE8KLOEM

[Systematic]

I've got a deal for rich people: You can keep your money so long as you agree not to oppress the poor. If you keep all of your money only because you starve the poor or allow disease or homelessness, then something has to change. It's amazingly easy to make sure that the poor are upwardly mobile, so if you can't even allow for that, then there is no reason to allow you to keep your fortune.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I've got a deal for rich people: You can keep your money so long as you agree not to oppress the poor. If you keep all of your money only because you starve the poor or allow disease or homelessness, then something has to change. It's amazingly easy to make sure that the poor are upwardly mobile, so if you can't even allow for that, then there is no reason to allow you to keep your fortune.

Rich people don't think they are oppressing the poor. Most of them would welcome your suggestion.

[bobevenson]

I've got a deal for rich people: You can keep your money so long as you agree not to oppress the poor.

In what way do rich people oppress the poor? It sounds to me like you're a Socialist, a Communist, or a Totalitarianist. You want to take the wealth of rich people and give it to poor people. Just come out and say it, why don't you?

[Arising_uk]

In what way do rich people oppress the poor? ....

Some of them make sure that the ladder is drawn-up to suit them and their own. Some of them don't pay their full taxes and make sure that when they make a loss the cost is born by those poorer than them.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In what way do rich people oppress the poor? ....

Some of them make sure that the ladder is drawn-up to suit them and their own. Some of them don't pay their full taxes and make sure that when they make a loss the cost is born by those poorer than them.

Troll feeding.
Tut tut tut.

He'll not see this, not even when he is dying in a ditch from poverty.

[bobevenson]

You people don't understand economics, taxation or free-market capitalism. You just sit there in your philosophical squalor and ruminate.

[Arising_uk]

... You just sit there in your philosophical squalor and ruminate.[/size][/b]

Pots and glasshouses methinks. Except of course you don't philosophise.

[Dalek Prime]

I've got a deal for rich people: You can keep your money so long as you agree not to oppress the poor.

In what way do rich people oppress the poor? It sounds to me like you're a Socialist, a Communist, or a Totalitarianist. You want to take the wealth of rich people and give it to poor people. Just come out and say it, why don't you?

What's wrong with a better distribution Bob? Eventually, there will be no one from the masses left to consume and make the wealthy even wealthier. As things stand, an economy must grow in order not to stagnate. How does this occur when you can't grow on the backs of increasingly poor consumers? You have absolutely no clue about anything, Bob. I'd ask you to desist in your lunacy, but I and many others would be bored out of our trees without your ridiculous fodder. (Yes, that's a compliment, Bob. Take it where you can get it.)

[Hobbes' Choice]

I've got a deal for rich people: You can keep your money so long as you agree not to oppress the poor.

In what way do rich people oppress the poor? It sounds to me like you're a Socialist, a Communist, or a Totalitarianist. You want to take the wealth of rich people and give it to poor people. Just come out and say it, why don't you?

What's wrong with a better distribution Bob? Eventually, there will be no one from the masses left to consume and make the wealthy even wealthier. As things stand, an economy must grow in order not to stagnate. How does this occur when you can't grow on the backs of increasingly poor consumers? You have absolutely no clue about anything, Bob. I'd ask you to desist in your lunacy, but I and many others would be bored out of our trees without your ridiculous fodder. (Yes, that's a compliment, Bob. Take it where you can get it.)

Another point of agreement, Dalek.
Wealth polarisation is self defeating, leads to poverty and demands for more welfare and sucks the economy dry from the bottom up.
You have to re-distribute because unfettered capitalism will destroy itself.

[Obvious Leo]

You have to re-distribute because unfettered capitalism will destroy itself.

Just ask the Chinese. An old mate of mine was always fond of saying that there's no such thing as a stupid Chinaman and although this is probably bullshit I reckon he had a point. Nowadays the entire focus for the Chinese model of state capitalism is aimed at elevating people off the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder and turning them into the mindless consumers of useless junk which the rest of the world has become. This doesn't actually make any sense but it's bloody good for the economy.