This topic is locked from further discussion.
that's why i pay taxes[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]
Do you need all of the money you have? Most likely not.
SpartanMSU
What? So you have no money left over after taxes? Yeah...don't think so.
i don't have money left over, i live paycheck to paycheck and only buy things i need[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"][QUOTE="ZumaJones07"] that's why i pay taxesZumaJones07
What? So you have no money left over after taxes? Yeah...don't think so.
i don't have money left over, i live paycheck to paycheck and only buy things i needI'm sure you could live on much less if you really wanted. You're on a video game website, so I assume you play video games. Those aren't needs.
No they shouldn't have to. I'd love to meet a rich person that'd be nice enough to help me out a little, but that's never happened :cry:. And lol at people saying go to college and get a better job. It's hard enough to get a crappy job, but when everyone's studying for jobs that are more limited, it isn't easy. I have a couple of friends that have degrees and stuff but can't find a job because there's other applicants with the same qualifications that have work experience.
I think there's definitely something to be said for wealthy people sharing their money.
On a related note, I don't support higher taxes for the wealthy. I would if I knew that the government would spend that money responsibly, but I can't be certain of that.
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]Work or Starve. (excluding the extremely disabled, elderly, and children of course)There aren't enough jobs to go around derp.Poor people do often need a bit of assistance to get by.
Vuurk
Work or Starve. (excluding the extremely disabled, elderly, and children of course)There aren't enough jobs to go around derp. Wouldn't be a problem if people didn't have so many damn kids. If the US government didn't help out single women with children, there could possibly be less births going on because the women would try harder to not get pregnant when they feel they can't take care of a child. Not to mention. there wouldn't be single women purposely getting children so the government pays off their lives (and then passing on their knowledge).[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
Poor people do often need a bit of assistance to get by.
TopTierHustler
[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]NoKiIIyouWhy not? If you worked your ass off to become the president of a company, and slowly became very rich, would you want your hard EARNED money (the topic doesn't say SOME, it is implying ALL of your money) to be taken from you? I know damn well I wouldn't. Especially if it's being given to the government.
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]There aren't enough jobs to go around derp. Wouldn't be a problem if people didn't have so many damn kids. If the US government didn't help out single women with children, there could possibly be less births going on because the women would try harder to not get pregnant when they feel they can't take care of a child. Not to mention. there wouldn't be single women purposely getting children so the government pays off their lives (and then passing on their knowledge).I would not be opposed to children limits, especially on the poor.[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Work or Starve. (excluding the extremely disabled, elderly, and children of course)jesuschristmonk
People opposing condoms and abortions and supporting illegal immigration doesn't help either.
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]There aren't enough jobs to go around derp. Wouldn't be a problem if people didn't have so many damn kids. If the US government didn't help out single women with children, there could possibly be less births going on because the women would try harder to not get pregnant when they feel they can't take care of a child. Not to mention. there wouldn't be single women purposely getting children so the government pays off their lives (and then passing on their knowledge). Then you get less consumers and the economy stalls. The real problem is that the system is deeply contradictory and unsustainable in its foundations. It needs an ever growing population but it has to come up with jobs for those people. At the same time the standard of living increases and so salaries go up and then companies take their jobs to seek for cheaper workforces. So you get less jobs with an increasing population. Those with an already high standard of living and jobs keep making money while a wave of people that remain unemployed get poorer and poorer increasing the wealth gap. Soon this group of people start feeling resentment since they studied and prepared but there are no jobs or money for them, they don't get what they were promised (the american dream or its equivalent). Those people become then detached from the system and angry with it and that's where social problems start to increase. It's all very logical and commonsensical, sadly those who run the shots think society works like fictitious games of probabilities where everything is a rational agent (game theory). So they make decisions based on those models and ignore reality.[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Work or Starve. (excluding the extremely disabled, elderly, and children of course)jesuschristmonk
No. Rich people have the right to do what they please with their money. Poor people are poor because of their own choices in life. It's their own fault they didn't go to college and get a decent job. No one should be give anything. Everyone should have to earn their place in the world.SmashBrosLegendif the world was fair and equal i would agree with you, but it isn't.
How is this so black and white? All I'm reading is, "you're too lazy to work for your money". Are people really so stupid and simple-minded to think it's all that simple? People are different. Some things inherently come much easier to people in life, and some are blessed to be born with such gifts that are applicable in the world while others not so much, and hence they have to work harder to get to the same place. Sure it still takes work for both, but it's a leg up for one and not the other. So how can anyone hold everyone up to the same standard?
I know that's the way it has to work, but it pisses me off when people make it out to be so simple, and then point their finger at someone who isn't as successful but is not as blessed as one who is more successful, and then attribute it entirely to laziness and poor character. It's ignorant. Life isn't fair in what it gives nor affords, and some struggle much more than others to accomplish the same thing. It's not simply about work ethic, it's about ability and opportunity also. This varies wildly from person to person. I'm certain there are people out there who bust their ass a lot harder than someone who is more "successful" in life, for whatever reason.
Even with that said, I don't think someone who has money should be obligated to give it to the poor unless they are insanely wealthy like Gates. Even then I don't think he owes anyone, but with that amount of money that he will never be able to spend in multiple lifetimes, I think it's wrong and selfish to hoard it.
Glad that I'm not one of them :)jesuschristmonk
If you believe people shouldn't be allowed to keep the money they earn you certainly are selfish.
I think everyone should be charitable in their own way. But should the rich be charitable? Of course but no one - poor, middle class, or rich - should be forced to give their money.
isn't that just communism?nickmagHow is that communism? You do realize that blue collar people are the ones putting money in the rich pockets. If poor people keep on getting poorer, facts are they will stop buying, and once the retail industry, cars, food, etc..... slow down, that's bad for business. Look i'm not saying Bill Gates have to give away huge pile of money, no way... Bill Gates earn his money so he has the right to keep most of it. My point is rich companies such as oil, banks, military most of them lie, bend rules, and influence the laws in favor of the rich and powerful, which takes away the motivation of poor people to improve their life style. Now i do believe in Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" because of resources (Earth minerals, food, water and space) is limited to growth of human population, but rich people, companies should not influence the law to help themselves, let the laws be fare and whoever is the smartest, works the hardest should be awarded. If people are lazy and don't want to study or work they should deserve to live in a crappy place.
[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"]Glad that I'm not one of them :)airshocker
If you believe people shouldn't be allowed to keep the money they earn you certainly are selfish.
Like I said: Glad I'm one of those that believe that :) Of course there are the few rich people (I'm not going to name any just in case I come off as being bias or w/e), but that's no reason that the rich people that actually worked their asses off should be punished as well.Like I said: Glad I'm one of those that believe that :) Of course there are the few rich people (I'm not going to name any just in case I come off as being bias or w/e), but that's no reason that the rich people that actually worked their asses off should be punished as well.jesuschristmonk
So you believe people should keep the money they earn? Just to be clear.
[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"]Like I said: Glad I'm one of those that believe that :) Of course there are the few rich people (I'm not going to name any just in case I come off as being bias or w/e), but that's no reason that the rich people that actually worked their asses off should be punished as well.airshocker
So you believe people should keep the money they earn? Just to be clear.
Yah, sorry lol. My other posts also pointed out that if I ever became rich (I figure it won't be because of the lottery), I wouldn't want MY money to be given away to people without MY consent. Especially if it's being given to the government lol.Why would they ? Its their choice anyways, When i become rich i will give poor people money if they work for me. AussieePetReciprocal altruism at its finest.
I mean "worst."
You apparently care a lot about rich people and their bank accounts...kuraimen
What's ironic? And where did I make mention of bank accounts other than my own in either of those quotes?
Also, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
If you work harder/smarter you will still get a better job that pays more just like in America . If you work more hours you will still get paid more for you work, same as now. Is that not rewarding you for hard work?EntropyWinsNo, because you're taking more money out of my pay check to pay for other people. So I'll be rewarded less for working just like I always do./
And no, I don't look beyond my own bank account in terms of the economy. None of you people MATTER to me. I couldn't care less if you dropped dead a second after reading my post. Every single one of you feel the exact same way about me, so don't even pretend to feel otherwise.airshocker
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]You apparently care a lot about rich people and their bank accounts...airshocker
What's ironic? And where did I make mention of bank accounts other than my own in either of those quotes?
Also, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
Glitchspot... That you have make it very clear how you care about you you you and you first and no one else that is not close to you and then you talk about selfishness.. :roll:[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"]Glad that I'm not one of them :)airshocker
If you believe people shouldn't be allowed to keep the money they earn you certainly are selfish.
Question: if, hypothetically, you make over $1 million a year, you support tax increases on anyone making over $1 million a year, and you advocate redistributing those tax revenues to people making under $1 million a year, what in that is selfish? Point being, it's not a simple matter of selfishness.Glitchspot... That you have make it very clear how you care about you you you and you first and no one else that is not close to you and then you talk about selfishness.. :roll:kuraimen
That's called being self-interested, not selfish. If I was selfish I would not be a police officer, nor would I do the amount of charity that I do.
Wanting to keep the money that I earn isn't being selfish. Wanting to take other people's money, actively pursuing such a goal, is being selfish. If you want to help others so much you should give them your money, not other's.
[QUOTE="hadoken"]110 ppl said yes? this shocks me, EARN UR OWN MONEY U LAZY BASTARDS!!!!VuurkHaha. You gotta realize man that most people in the world want handouts. I agree with you though. Helping others financially is just so silly. Who could possibly conceive of such a thing? Also, it's absurd to hear that countless people need equal opportunity in the socioeconomic sphere in order to live a decent life. How silly.
[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]You apparently care a lot about rich people and their bank accounts...kuraimen
What's ironic? And where did I make mention of bank accounts other than my own in either of those quotes?
Also, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
Glitchspot... That you have make it very clear how you care about you you you and you first and no one else that is not close to you and then you talk about selfishness.. :roll: How the hell is wanting to keep your earned assets selfish....... By that logic so is breathing........Question: if, hypothetically, you make over $1 million a year, you support tax increases on anyone making over $1 million a year, and you advocate redistributing those tax revenues to people making under $1 million a year, what in that is selfish? Point being, it's not a simple matter of selfishness.chessmaster1989
The fact that you aren't giving all of your money away first before advocating taking it away from others.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Question: if, hypothetically, you make over $1 million a year, you support tax increases on anyone making over $1 million a year, and you advocate redistributing those tax revenues to people making under $1 million a year, what in that is selfish? Point being, it's not a simple matter of selfishness.airshocker
The fact that you aren't giving all of your money away first before advocating taking it away from others.
In the hypothetical, you are advocating a policy that is contrary to your own self-interest. That is antithetical to selfishness...[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]Glitchspot... That you have make it very clear how you care about you you you and you first and no one else that is not close to you and then you talk about selfishness.. :roll: How the hell is wanting to keep your earned assets selfish....... By that logic so is breathing........What's ironic? And where did I make mention of bank accounts other than my own in either of those quotes?
Also, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
Mafiree
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.
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.
kuraimen
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.
[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Question: if, hypothetically, you make over $1 million a year, you support tax increases on anyone making over $1 million a year, and you advocate redistributing those tax revenues to people making under $1 million a year, what in that is selfish? Point being, it's not a simple matter of selfishness.chessmaster1989
The fact that you aren't giving all of your money away first before advocating taking it away from others.
In the hypothetical, you are advocating a policy that is contrary to your own self-interest. That is antithetical to selfishness... 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.In the hypothetical, you are advocating a policy that is contrary to your own self-interest. That is antithetical to selfishness...chessmaster1989
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"]Glitchspot... That you have make it very clear how you care about you you you and you first and no one else that is not close to you and then you talk about selfishness.. :roll:airshocker
That's called being self-interested, not selfish. If I was selfish I would not be a police officer, nor would I do the amount of charity that I do.
Wanting to keep the money that I earn isn't being selfish. Wanting to take other people's money, actively pursuing such a goal, is being selfish. If you want to help others so much you should give them your money, not other's.
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.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment