Should rich people give their money to poor people ?

/Most/ rich people don't earn their money fairly, so...

Big_Pecks

Wow.

self·ish/ˈselfiSH/ Adjective: (of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

That's basically what you said in the posts I quoted.

kuraimen

No, it's not. I don't lack consideration, I simply don't care. I'm also not chiefly concerned with my own personal profit or pleasure, I'm concerned about my family.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

He explicitly said that he didn't care about others or to help other people if it doesn't benefit him. That's almost the definition of selfishness.

airshocker

Actually what I said was I couldn't care less if THE_DRUGGIE dropped dead a second after reading my post. That's not being selfish, nor is it even related to what we're discussing.

No, it's not. I don't lack consideration, I simply don't care.airshocker

"None of you people MATTER to me" That's what you said, you didn't said DRUGGIE you said "none of you"kuraimen

None of you do matter to me. That doesn't make me selfish.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Work or Starve. (excluding the extremely disabled, elderly, and children of course)Vuurk

WTF? how can you have consideration without caring? :roll:kuraimen

Because you can consider something without caring about it...? Seriously, you need to go back to elementary english.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="airshocker"] Not necessarily...... You can gain utility from giving your money. However preferences are not all the same. So, requiring this of others could be viewed as selfish.Mafiree

Utility gains from giving away money are generally a result of wanting to 'feel better' about yourself, and to the extent that you'd gain utility from giving away money, you would have already given it away. However, it seems hard to imagine how you benefit when other people give away their money.

I don't really see how it could be construed as selfish. Your own utility would almost certainly not increase.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]In the hypothetical, you are advocating a policy that is contrary to your own self-interest. That is antithetical to selfishness...airshocker

Yet, in the hypothetical, the person isn't doing everything they can before advocating others should have to pay more. That sounds pretty selfish to me.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]"None of you people MATTER to me" That's what you said, you didn't said DRUGGIE you said "none of you"airshocker

None of you do matter to me. That doesn't make me selfish.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]WTF? how can you have consideration without caring? :roll:airshocker

Because you can consider something without caring about it...? Seriously, you need to go back to elementary english.

I never specified the person's charitable contributions, so I'm surprised at your assumption. That said, would your opinion change if the person already gave away an amount equivalent (or greater than) what he paid under the proposed tax?

chessmaster1989

No, only if he gave away all of his income except what he reasonably needs to live.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I never specified the person's charitable contributions, so I'm surprised at your assumption. That said, would your opinion change if the person already gave away an amount equivalent (or greater than) what he paid under the proposed tax?

airshocker

No, only if he gave away all of his income except what he reasonably needs to live.

Along with the other things you said yes it does. The definition of selfish matches exactly with what you wrote on that thread kuraimen

You have yet to prove that assertion. The only thing that you've shown is that your grasp of the english language is laughable.

Selfishness implies some degree of personal benefit. I ask you, what is the personal benefit?chessmaster1989

The feel-good emotions he gets from donating to a cause he believes in?

If you don't care about something why would you consider it? You need elementary common sense.kuraimen

Why do I have to care about something in order to consider it?

Also you should point out the idea of Adam Smith. (figurehead of modern day economics) He presented the idea that a society in which everyone acts out of their own self interest will also increase the overall welfare of the entire society without necessarily meaning to. I wish more people understood this idea.. =[Vuurk

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Selfishness implies some degree of personal benefit. I ask you, what is the personal benefit?airshocker

The feel-good emotions he gets from donating to a cause he believes in?

[QUOTE="olliebalollie"][QUOTE="nickmag"]isn't that just communism?Vuurk

No, my wage is determined only by a magical fairy in the sky. Supply and demand doesn't apply to me.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Work or Starve. (excluding the extremely disabled, elderly, and children of course)Vuurk

Please tell me that you are not this ignorant of economic reality. The number of available job positions is vastly smaller than the number of job positions. It's not as if suddenly a few years ago it became a fad to collect unemployment insurance.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]Not necessarily...... You can gain utility from giving your money. However preferences are not all the same. So, requiring this of others could be viewed as selfish.chessmaster1989

Utility gains from giving away money are generally a result of wanting to 'feel better' about yourself, and to the extent that you'd gain utility from giving away money, you would have already given it away. However, it seems hard to imagine how you benefit when other people give away their money. I don't really see how it could be construed as selfish. Your own utility would almost certainly not increase.

Why else would people vote and donate to campaigns?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Along with the other things you said yes it does. The definition of selfish matches exactly with what you wrote on that thread airshocker

You have yet to prove that assertion. The only thing that you've shown is that your grasp of the english language is laughable.

no, **** that **** I work for my money, if they can be poor all day they can work at mcdonalds all day and be less poor.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]Also you should point out the idea of Adam Smith. (figurehead of modern day economics) He presented the idea that a society in which everyone acts out of their own self interest will also increase the overall welfare of the entire society without necessarily meaning to. I wish more people understood this idea.. =[Person0

And the cause? Government. You can't blame free market capitalism when we don't have it.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

self·ish/ˈselfiSH/ Adjective: (of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

That's basically what you said in the posts I quoted.

Vuurk

No, it's not. I don't lack consideration, I simply don't care. I'm also not chiefly concerned with my own personal profit or pleasure, I'm concerned about my family.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]Not necessarily...... You can gain utility from giving your money. However preferences are not all the same. So, requiring this of others could be viewed as selfish.Mafiree

Utility gains from giving away money are generally a result of wanting to 'feel better' about yourself, and to the extent that you'd gain utility from giving away money, you would have already given it away. However, it seems hard to imagine how you benefit when other people give away their money. I don't really see how it could be construed as selfish. Your own utility would almost certainly not increase.

Why else would people vote and donate to campaigns?

Because politicians can enact policies that directly (and economically) benefit a person. Political donations are effectively a calculated risk.

Also, political donations aren't a good subject to bring up here since the tax dollars presumably wouldn't be going to fund election campaigns.

Also you should point out the idea of Adam Smith. (figurehead of modern day economics) He presented the idea that a society in which everyone acts out of their own self interest will also increase the overall welfare of the entire society without necessarily meaning to. I wish more people understood this idea.. =[Vuurk

Purely selfish motives are what make society abysmal.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] There are plenty of jobs to go around. It's just a matter of people not wanting to work at a minimum wage job. They would rather not work and collect unemployment insurance. Or what happens in many cases, is they work for cash and do not report their income yet they still collect unemployment insurance. There are ALWAYS jobs available in our economy. Just maybe not the ideal job that people are looking for. However, you have to do whatever is possible to put food on the table. In the cave man days, no one gave you welfare or unemployment insurance if you decided to sit at home instead of working your ass off. You died if you were unable to forage/hunt enough food. Vuurk

If he benefitted more from donating the money than he did from keeping it, he would already have donated it. Therefore, under the law, he will donate (including taxes) at least as much as he did before the law was passed, while his utility gain will be non-positive.

chessmaster1989

I don't see where utility comes into play in this instance. This has to do more with philosophy than microeconomics, I think.

But I'll bite regardless, even though you'll destroy me: We would first have to determine what his total utility gain would be corresponding with the amount of money he gives.

You didn't even know the definition of selfish apparently... sadly that I know more english than a native english speaker...kuraimen

Then why is no one else agreeing with you...?

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Utility gains from giving away money are generally a result of wanting to 'feel better' about yourself, and to the extent that you'd gain utility from giving away money, you would have already given it away. However, it seems hard to imagine how you benefit when other people give away their money. I don't really see how it could be construed as selfish. Your own utility would almost certainly not increase.

chessmaster1989

Why else would people vote and donate to campaigns?

Because politicians can enact policies that directly (and economically) benefit a person. Political donations are effectively a calculated risk.

Also, political donations aren't a good subject to bring up here since the tax dollars presumably wouldn't be going to fund election campaigns.

Yes...but only if it is their decision.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

None of you do matter to me. That doesn't make me selfish.

Vuurk

I'm concerned and of course care about a stable society that provides opportunities to everyone. Not a society that gives the opportunity to a few people to accumulate as much money as they can while millions are starving or lacking opportunities. I can't control a car crash but I would if I could. If I can help change society to be more fair then I will, I think a fairer society ultimately also helps me and my family too.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]You didn't even know the definition of selfish apparently... sadly that I know more english than a native english speaker...airshocker

Then why is no one else agreeing with you...?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

None of you do matter to me. That doesn't make me selfish.

Vuurk

Knowing someone personally is not a requirement for helping that person.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]You didn't even know the definition of selfish apparently... sadly that I know more english than a native english speaker...kuraimen

Then why is no one else agreeing with you...?

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Along with the other things you said yes it does. The definition of selfish matches exactly with what you wrote on that thread ghoklebutter

Lnowing someone personally is not an important condition for helping that person.

Is no one else you and Vuurk? OMG I am so wrong! :roll: I trust the dictionary more than you two.kuraimen

Since you're so good at using a dictionary I think you know what "no one else" means. And you still have yet to prove that I'm selfish. :lol: