> And we shouldn't. Stealing from the rich is still stealing.
I was speaking of "modern day Robin Hood" as a concept. It is implemented via taxes, but this whole example shows how flawed it is. Also who are you? the Robin Hood story characterizes Robin Hood as the hero because the rich were taking money in bad and terrorizing ways. If you want to take my robin hood concept literally, then take my example of the rich implementing programs and policies as literally terrorizing too.
>take the people with excess wealth - providing no utility right now
Most "excess wealth" is tied up in business and other investments. It's not like wealthy people just horde cash like Scrooge McDuck. That wealth is currently working to support the economy. It is hardly passive.
Forcing the wealthy to pay increased tax on this value will cause them to close business functions, sell stocks, etc.
Is that really wise at this point in time? To redistribute value from existing, proven formats into unspecific, theoretically useful ones?
Theft is not immoral simply because it is unfair or mean. It's because it causes systemic dysfunction.
> Income redistribution is just a fancy name for stealing.
And many of world's greatest fortunes were and are created by stealing and other equally immoral practices. Your apparent ideology that government taxation is inherently evil, and capitalist markets are inherently good is incredibly naïve.
> The modifier is that I don't think you can ascend to the uber rich tier of society without having had siphoned off value from society.
That's cart before the horse.
Siphoning implies stealing. Then you're justifying your theft from those individuals. Value is created, and of course theft is possible, but you'ren't talking about theft, you're claiming that people just should pay more because of the virtue of having more.
> the lie that the rich benefit disproportionately from our society
Why do you consider that a lie? There's a reason why kidnappers try to target rich people's kids... because rich people are willing to pay much more to gave their kid back - they literally value the kid's life more (in money terms).
Another perspective is, a geting injured/killed will deprive a rich person of a lot of consumption, but a poor person of just a little consumption. Therefore, by protecting rich people, governments provide more value than by protecting poor people.
> Now personally, I'm in favor of eliminating all taxes on capital income (and capital, e.g. property taxes). Economically, the best tax is a consumption tax; you live in a home, you pay taxes on the value of living in it. No property tax, no income tax, etc.
What about income tax? What about corporate tax (personally, I think it makes sense, because it's a choice - you don't need to pay corporate tax, but they you don't get the privileges of the corporation being a separate entity)?
>There is absolutely no proof that violence backed theft against the rich leads to a higher standard of living in the long run.
In the scenario I'm describing, it's a certainty. Without theft, everyone starves to death because they have no property which would enable them to acquire food. If they steal from him, they survive.
Now obviously this is not a very realistic scenario, but my point is that strict enforcement of property rights can cause direct harm in certain situations.
And I would argue that lesser inequality still exhibits the same kind of failure mode, where the poor become incapable of acquiring resources, because they have nothing the rich need.
>That's an immature standard for morality. Theft is wrong.
Moral absolutism seems a lot more immature to me. Almost any category of act can be good in the right circumstances.
>And even if there were, social outcomes cannot in any sane justice system justify violating someone's rights.
But now you're talking about a justice system. Enforcing rules at the expense of short term outcomes can be beneficial, but only if people respecting the rules causes better outcomes in the long term.
Rights are only as valuable as the outcomes they lead to.
> So, if you stole every last dollar from every last billionaire in the US and redistributed it for the last 30 years, each person would only get 500$ per year.
Loaded use of the world “stole” there.
This is a faulty analysis. It’s well studied and well known, for example, that the top 10% of people income wise have ~70% of the wealth in the US. Similar patterns exist globally. This has been reproduced many ways by many people and squarely contradicts your calculation.
>democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them...
good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich".
Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT something. Just because they're rich and you're not doesn't mean you deserve to be. This country (USA) - at least in theory - is about equal OPPORTUNITY - NOT "Equal Outcome".
Life Isn't FAIR. Stop trying to make everyone equal when they clearly aren't. Some people put in more work, have better ideas, better skills, attention to details, and follow through, while others do not.
You may never steal directly from your neighbor or friend, but voting for the government to do it is the same thing.
> I think "normal people" will very much care about shoplifting when they see that prices go up to cover for that. Or, even worse, when store owners figure they can't be profitable in some area and go away altogether.
How and when are they going to see that ?
In my country, there newspapers headlines about how supermarkets have egregious margins.
Is this true ? I don't know, but they don't mention shoplifting in the articles.
> I think people keep on thinking that "the rich" feel they have some kind of moral obligation to help them. As we've seen time and again, they do not.
The rich do not have a moral obligation to help us but they do have a legal obligation to pay their taxes and give back to societies they live in and benefit from like everyone else.
I am not sure it's moral obligation but they could also have the decency to stop spending so much money in lobbying, politics and information campaigning in order not to pay their due proportionally to what they own.
Is this not accurate anymore : https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w...
> The wealthy aren’t a magically endless source of loot.
True. But that's how they've been treating folks with less advantage since time immemorial. Which tends to work until the exploitation becomes too egregious and lower classes implement a head tax on the wealthy.
> So you are saying "normal" people don't hire accountants to ensure they pay the minimal amount of tax while wealthy people do?
Did I say that? Or did I specifically refer to slimeballs, loopholes, Paradise and Panama papers, bribing legislators etc. Do normal people do that, in your view? Because it seems pretty normal among billionaires. I don't remember any normal people paying thugs to bust up strikes, or paying to print anti union propaganda and rig unionising votes.
You seem to be saying, might makes right; and that we'd do those things above if we were in their position. Even if that were true (it's not), that would be all the more reason to change the rules that allow such consolidation of wealth and abuse of power to exist.
Going back to your original claim - that it's not obvious (to you) that billionaires care less about the common good than common people - here is a poem that has survived the last 250+ years.
> if you let rich people keep more of their money, they have more of the money. If you simultaneously take from poor people, they stay poor.
Not to join the debate here, but the use of language here really interests me. When talking about the rich, it's that we "let [them] keep more of their money" as if "we" (the government) has a right to every cent a person makes. When talking about the poor, we "take" from them, as if it's unjust theft.
Not trying to argue against you, it's a perfectly normal view, I just find it funny how much ideology paints language.
> Yes, "rich" people can get there "unfairly", but it turns out "just take it from them" is really a stupid idea.
Who said "just take it from him?" I certainly didn't. I don't know the complexities of the case, the law, etc.
I'm just surprised people rally around this guy like he's a common man sticking it to those rich plutocrats. When, in fact, it kind of sounds like the exact opposite.
Also: He doesn't have "it." If anything, the argument would be that he should be prevented from creating an economic disaster just so he can jump from "pretty damn wealthy" to "unbelievably wealthy."
I was speaking of "modern day Robin Hood" as a concept. It is implemented via taxes, but this whole example shows how flawed it is. Also who are you? the Robin Hood story characterizes Robin Hood as the hero because the rich were taking money in bad and terrorizing ways. If you want to take my robin hood concept literally, then take my example of the rich implementing programs and policies as literally terrorizing too.
reply