NationStates

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Sundiata wrote:In a just world there would be no reason to envy the rich.

In a just world the rich wouldn't exist.

That's not true, in a just world the rich would provide tax revenue and charitable donations. They're also supposed to set an example for the poor.

Sundiata wrote:In a just world there would be no reason to envy the rich.

While I envy the rich, my position for higher taxes isn't because of envy for them, it is because of empathy for the less well off. My contributing 1% of my wealth will not significantly impact the homeless issue, healthcare, or any number of issues. Jeff Bezos contributing 1% of his wealth would.

The Marlborough wrote:Also what are we defining as "rich" here?

Bourgeoisie.

Sundiata wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
In a just world the rich wouldn't exist.

That's not true, in a just world the rich would provide tax revenue and charitable donations. They're also supposed to set an example for the poor.

Why do the poor need an "example" set for them, and what about being rich makes someone qualified to do that?

Thermodolia wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Tbf there seems to be a genuine growing exodus from NYC so I mean in the end it doesn't really matter.

There’s a growing exodus from all major cities because they seem to be extremely mismanaged.

Well, Northeast coastal and West Coast cities. Cities like Dallas seem to be attracting people. Also the high cost of living doesn't help in those places either. Hell, people are worse off in NYC today than they were in the 90's on average iirc when you account for the cost of living spike. Shit I'm not leaving my city, why would I? My money goes way, way further here than it would in a place like NYC or Toronto. If I want to watch Broadway, I'll just pop in my copy of Cats or go there on vacation at some point.

Sundiata wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
In a just world the rich wouldn't exist.

That's not true, in a just world the rich would provide tax revenue and charitable donations. They're also supposed to set an example for the poor.

What example are they supposed to set? Get lucky and maybe you can buy a boat?

Valrifell wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Maybe NYC shouldn’t be paying for expansions of the transport network when their current infrastructure is in such disrepair. Maybe they should do what MARTA does and pay for the upgrades first and expand later. Even if it means pushing the expansions down the line.

That’s what us poor and lower class guys have to do. We have to pay for upkeep first before we can pay for luxuries. It’s called budgeting, maybe NYC should try it.

Silly point, municipal and personal finance are two nearly completely unrelated things, this is an argument for austerity and you absolutely should not support austerity.

No. But I do support funding for the poor first and foremost. If you try doing it backwards your problems will multiply. You take care of the poor first, then everything else. If there’s not enough money to do those extra things then you don’t do those extra things if it means the rural poor upstate will get shafted

The Marlborough wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:There’s a growing exodus from all major cities because they seem to be extremely mismanaged.

Well, Northeast coastal and West Coast cities. Cities like Dallas seem to be attracting people.

[smiles in ERCOT] not for long!

Thermodolia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Silly point, municipal and personal finance are two nearly completely unrelated things, this is an argument for austerity and you absolutely should not support austerity.

No. But I do support funding for the poor first and foremost. If you try doing it backwards your problems will multiply. You take care of the poor first, then everything else. If there’s not enough money to do those extra things then you don’t do those extra things if it means the rural poor upstate will get shafted

Yes, but it's not exactly the wealthy who rely on public transportation. Expansions of those tend to benefit the urban poor.

Thermodolia wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Also what are we defining as "rich" here?

The top 1%

Fair, I've just seen some people apply it apply to those in the top 10% as well.

Sundiata wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
In a just world the rich wouldn't exist.

That's not true, in a just world the rich would provide tax revenue and charitable donations. They're also supposed to set an example for the poor.

Eye of a camel and all that. Even Big G doesn't like the rich.

Thermodolia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Silly point, municipal and personal finance are two nearly completely unrelated things, this is an argument for austerity and you absolutely should not support austerity.

No. But I do support funding for the poor first and foremost. If you try doing it backwards your problems will multiply. You take care of the poor first, then everything else. If there’s not enough money to do those extra things then you don’t do those extra things if it means the rural poor upstate will get shafted

Who do you think uses public transportation? Maintaining and expanding public transport is critical for low income households to be able to get to work.

The Marlborough wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:There’s a growing exodus from all major cities because they seem to be extremely mismanaged.

Well, Northeast coastal and West Coast cities. Cities like Dallas seem to be attracting people. Also the high cost of living doesn't help in those places either. Hell, people are worse off in NYC today than they were in the 90's on average iirc when you account for the cost of living spike. Shit I'm not leaving my city, why would I? My money goes way, way further here than it would in a place like NYC or Toronto. If I want to watch Broadway, I'll just pop in my copy of Cats or go there on vacation at some point.

True. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Phoenix are all attracting people

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No. But I do support funding for the poor first and foremost. If you try doing it backwards your problems will multiply. You take care of the poor first, then everything else. If there’s not enough money to do those extra things then you don’t do those extra things if it means the rural poor upstate will get shafted

Who do you think uses public transportation? Maintaining and expanding public transport is critical for low income households to be able to get to work.

And guess what, they don't necessarily have the income for tax hikes, the rich do.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No. But I do support funding for the poor first and foremost. If you try doing it backwards your problems will multiply. You take care of the poor first, then everything else. If there’s not enough money to do those extra things then you don’t do those extra things if it means the rural poor upstate will get shafted

Who do you think uses public transportation? Maintaining and expanding public transport is critical for low income households to be able to get to work.

Yes I’m aware. Maintaining the public transportation system is apart of taking care of the poor. Don’t misconstrue my stance on this.

Thermodolia wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Well, Northeast coastal and West Coast cities. Cities like Dallas seem to be attracting people. Also the high cost of living doesn't help in those places either. Hell, people are worse off in NYC today than they were in the 90's on average iirc when you account for the cost of living spike. Shit I'm not leaving my city, why would I? My money goes way, way further here than it would in a place like NYC or Toronto. If I want to watch Broadway, I'll just pop in my copy of Cats or go there on vacation at some point.

True. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Phoenix are all attracting people

Phoenix is going to be uninhabitable by the end of the century and Dallas clearly has some kinks to work out too, so let's hope Atlanta can keep pace infrastructure-wise with population growth (if they're anything like Seattle or SF or Houston, they'll have some kind of problems accommodating it, even if they're not the same problems as any of those three).

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Sundiata wrote:That's not true, in a just world the rich would provide tax revenue and charitable donations. They're also supposed to set an example for the poor.

What example are they supposed to set? Get lucky and maybe you can buy a boat?

No, performing corporeal works of mercy. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that they're above washing a homeless person's feet or handing water to people who are thirsty.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Sundiata wrote:That's not true, in a just world the rich would provide tax revenue and charitable donations. They're also supposed to set an example for the poor.

Eye of a camel and all that. Even Big G doesn't like the rich.

In Sundiata's preferred state of things, the eye of a camel thing wouldn't apply. A number of people in the Bible that are noted for their piety were rich. Mary's father for example was a wealthy man but known for his charity and piousness.

Dresderstan wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Who do you think uses public transportation? Maintaining and expanding public transport is critical for low income households to be able to get to work.

And guess what, they don't necessarily have the income for tax hikes, the rich do.

Okay. Nobody at any point in this conversation has advocated for raising taxes on the poor.

Dresderstan wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Who do you think uses public transportation? Maintaining and expanding public transport is critical for low income households to be able to get to work.

And guess what, they don't necessarily have the income for tax hikes, the rich do.

Where did I imply that the poor would be seeing tax hikes. This is purely a response to someone saying NYC shouldn't expand their public infrastructure and public transportation. I'm all for the rich paying more in taxes.

The Marlborough wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He said it's as easy for them to get into heaven as it is to accomplish something physically impossible. He said this while telling people to give away all their money. Maybe stop making excuses for the rich?

This was more about how rich people wouldn't be charitable and further would let their desire for wealth to corrupt their moral decisions. This doesn't apply to all rich people, some of whom do give quite generously in charity nor let their wealth corrupt their moral compass.

If a person perpetuates a system in which people are starving, but also opens a soup kitchen for the needy, that person is not generous and charitable.

---

Sundiata wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I don't want the rich to give to the poor, I want the rich to have their wealth taken back by the people who created it and put to use meeting human needs.

I don't think that's an accurate perception of history.

Me saying what I want to happen in the future isn't any kind of perception of history. You may as well have said that my statement isn't the right shade of octarine.

If people didn't establish companies where would people work?

I think without the rich making us all continue to enrich them, rather a lot of us wouldn't need to work. We already make more than enough of the necessities of life. Hell, we make more than enough of the luxuries of life.

People who get rich have just as much a hand in their success as the people who work for them. Come on man.

They absolutely do not have just as much hand in being rich as those who worked to create their wealth. One person's contribution to an endeavour cannot possibly be equal to the contribution of hundreds or thousands of people. How can 40 hours a week from a CEO possibly be equal to 400,000 hours a week from their employees? Honestly, this Medieval bullshit you come out with trying to justify hierarchies in society just boggles my mind. I don't know how you can think so very little of ordinary people.

Valrifell wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:And guess what, they don't necessarily have the income for tax hikes, the rich do.

Okay. Nobody at any point in this conversation has advocated for raising taxes on the poor.

I am in favour of a regressive tax system.

Sundiata wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:
What example are they supposed to set? Get lucky and maybe you can buy a boat?

No, performing corporeal works of mercy. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that they're above washing a homeless person's feet or handing water to people who are thirsty.

I think the homeless need more than a foot rub lmfao

Valrifell wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No. But I do support funding for the poor first and foremost. If you try doing it backwards your problems will multiply. You take care of the poor first, then everything else. If there’s not enough money to do those extra things then you don’t do those extra things if it means the rural poor upstate will get shafted

Yes, but it's not exactly the wealthy who rely on public transportation. Expansions of those tend to benefit the urban poor.

Again I understand that, what I’m saying is that it doesn’t hurt to raise taxes on the rich to pay for those things. Transport is apart of supporting the poor. Lumen just got mad when we all said that NYC could definitely afford most of the funding themselves. I mean they got lots of rich people there and walk street. But those are apparently untouchable.

My argument was that if we can’t get the rich to pay their fair share than maybe we shouldn’t be expanding when the system is in disrepair if it means taking money that would go to the rural poor upstate.

Sundiata wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:
What example are they supposed to set? Get lucky and maybe you can buy a boat?

No, performing corporeal works of mercy. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that they're above washing a homeless person's feet or handing water to people who are thirsty.

Why do they have to be rich then to set an example?
Anyone can set the example of caring for others.