Is it bad to be "rich"?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Forcing them? As opposed to what, heading off into the forest and using stone tools to make their own Center for Innovation by hand? You need to get past this fantasy that you or anyone else is self-made. Everything you are and have was built upon those who came before you, using America's extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure (substituting other countries as appropriate for other people).

We don't see meaningful innovation coming from aboriginal tribes using hand-made stone tools. It comes from people people who leverage the benefits of a developed society to push forward. It comes from people who can take for granted things like electricity, clean water, plentiful safe food, roads, housing, education, banks, merchants, public safety, etc., so they can focus on creating the next big thing instead of scrounging for grubs for dinner.
You need to get past your fantasy that I am forever indebted an unlimited amount of money to pay for my limited use of infrastructure. You wield this supposed debt to society as a weapon to remove any claim regarding personal responsibility or merit.

In your system, everything I am is owed to someone else, and that is a debt which can never be paid to people who are long dead; I can claim no credit for anything I achieve, but society as a whole can claim credit for all of it; no matter the amount of work, time, energy, and effort I put into my innovation, I have no responsibility for it and owe it all to previous generations. Thus, we see that we owe everything in our society to Adam and Eve, without whom none of us could accomplish anything. Because of Adam and Eve, I have an unlimited debt to every other person in society. Because of Adam and Eve, I have no claim to the merits or fruits of my labor. But other people who are also not Adam and Eve have a claim to the fruits of my labor. This is the underlying foundation of your system as you described it. Your system sucks.

My system is one in which I pay a nominal fee for using a product or service. This fee may be proportional to the amount of the product or service I use. Thus, I have a claim to the fruits of my labor and can claim the merits of that labor after paying my finite debt to society for enabling that labor. This allows me to better myself and society in one go rather than working simply to dig my own grave.
Even more, turning that idea from a pipe dream into a profitable product demands extensive infrastructure support. One needs facilities, utilities, an adequately-educated workforce, suppliers, service providers, public safety and health, transportation, distributors, investors, a legal system with property & IP rights, ... and customers, all of whom are products of and dependent upon the same incredible physical, financial, and educational infrastructure provided by society. Take it away and no matter how brilliant and ambitious you may be, you're just a smart chimpanzee in a loin cloth.
You describe me as a slave to society. Society is my only source of sustenance without which I can accomplish nothing. You fail to see that society exists. Its existence implies that an achievement, such as society, is possible without society. Society is a means to this end. Does society exist to serve individuals or the other way around? Trick question. Individuals are part of society. Thus, the greater good will always be achieved by serving your own needs. If I spend all of my time and effort fulfilling the needs of others or society, I will die and so will all of my dependents.
As an educated person, you surely must understand that "partisan" is not limited to political parties. It can also, for example, refer to ideologies and generally taking sides. In this case, I was referring to your partisan devotion to the myth of the self-made man.
My ideology is simply this: if I work to earn something, then the earning is mine. If I have expenses along the way (e.g. the use of infrastructure), then that is an expense that is deducted from my earnings. I am responsible if I screw up, and I get the merit if I succeed. Your ideology is that no one is responsible for anything and no one has any merit: you have given society credit for everything. The corollary is that society is responsible for everyone and everything. Since society is simply a means to an end and can never produce anything by itself, your system (which is increasingly approximated by our current government) fails. When no one is responsible for anyone, when everyone is simply a cog in the wheel of society, and when everyone is infinitely beholden to society, everyone becomes a slave to society: the individual exists to serve society rather than society serving the individual.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
How many guys here Know at least 10 people who make 40 K a year and are paid strictly cash . I do . Hell I know of many businesses that pay cash to lower skilled labor cost . Both the employee and er Make out on these sweet deals. I won't say I have done it . But would I? Yes I would. My government doesn't represent me as I am in the majority.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
How many guys here Know at least 10 people who make 40 K a year and are paid strictly cash . I do . Hell I know of many businesses that pay cash to lower skilled labor cost . Both the employee and er Make out on these sweet deals. I won't say I have done it . But would I? Yes I would. My government doesn't represent me as I am in the majority.

I don't know any. It's wrong.

It's one thing to protest your government doing something immoral by not paying your taxes, possibly meaning going to jail.

It's another to not buy into democracy which means you may not get your way, and/or to look for excuses not to pay your share of our democracy. In that case: leave the country.

I'm all for greatly increasing the enforcement of tax laws. Make them fair, and enforce.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
My ideology is simply this: if I work to earn something, then the earning is mine. If I have expenses along the way (e.g. the use of infrastructure), then that is an expense that is deducted from my earnings. I am responsible if I screw up, and I get the merit if I succeed.

Your ideology is simplistic, not simply.

If you benefit from the roads, who pays? If you benefit from the availability of educated workers to hire, who pays? If they're available because their parents had government assistance for something, who pays? If you do not suffer crime because of criminal justice and anti-poverty programs, who pays? If you eat safe food because the government enforces standards and laws, who pays?

There are thousands of such examples of what happens in a society.

Guess what: there are only a few spots for the heads of companies like major car companies. Efficiencies dictate we won't have a million car makers where you can be CEO - but the small number we do have will ineitably gain by the efforts and wealth of thousands of workers, millions of customers - that's not the CEO creating the billions of wealth, it's him playing one role in an efficient system.

Your whole narcissistic model that you do it is a lie that feeds a harmful ideology.

You have a point to a point. There's some legitimacy to what you want. But you take it to illegitimate extremes, it seems.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Your ideology is simplistic, not simply.

If you benefit from the roads, who pays? If you benefit from the availability of educated workers to hire, who pays? If they're available because their parents had government assistance for something, who pays? If you do not suffer crime because of criminal justice and anti-poverty programs, who pays? If you eat safe food because the government enforces standards and laws, who pays?

There are thousands of such examples of what happens in a society.

Guess what: there are only a few spots for the heads of companies like major car companies. Efficiencies dictate we won't have a million car makers where you can be CEO - but the small number we do have will ineitably gain by the efforts and wealth of thousands of workers, millions of customers - that's not the CEO creating the billions of wealth, it's him playing one role in an efficient system.

Your whole narcissistic model that you do it is a lie that feeds a harmful ideology.

You have a point to a point. There's some legitimacy to what you want. But you take it to illegitimate extremes, it seems.

I dont believe cyclo is making a case of NOT paying taxes...
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
How many guys here Know at least 10 people who make 40 K a year and are paid strictly cash . I do . Hell I know of many businesses that pay cash to lower skilled labor cost . Both the employee and er Make out on these sweet deals. I won't say I have done it . But would I? Yes I would. My government doesn't represent me as I am in the majority.

Damn, you are surrounded by people that should be rounded up and jailed.

Have to wonder about you too since they are the company you keep.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I have always been honest about my youth . I know sin like you can't believe. I have done things the majority would never ever do. I know poverity . I know luxury . I also know the best times of our lives is when I hit bottom in so far as future goes and didn't have jack shit. a broken body . This is when I stopped caring about people as friends. I never left my humble beginnings . Ya I know the people around me 95% I wouldn't give time of day they be scum and I treat them as such . Some are well to do scum some are poor scum and some are your everyday garden varity scum , But all are scum . I changed healed self with help of a good woman. I have been threw some shit storms for fact , But all was my own doing and not once have I asked God why. Not once did I complain to God . Even as i type this my pain is high this night but so what . Many people suffer. I believe the end is upon us . I have asked God to allow me to witness the end I doubt he would grant a sinner the only request he ever made of God other than to excuse me. I would go to hell gladly if I were to be the Last man standing. Just knowing this animal called man was over with. Me and Satan in hell together would be a great show me knowing man is greater than the greatest angle ever created. Ya I could live in hell in the knowledge of God true name . Can you imagine Satans angish of a spirit constantly saying GOD holyname in hell . I could do this it would almost be heaven to me . almost. I know what life has dished out to me I doubt Satan could top that.

Has not anyone ever wonder Why Dec 25 is said to be Christ birth day. Are you aware that on dec22 that the sun seems to stop in the heaven and it isn't until the 25th of dec that starts moving N again . The Birth . Thats 3days that the sun is dead in the heavens from our point of view . But we dont celebrate the ressurrection until the easter period when the sun overcomes the night in length of day . Has not anyone wondered why the church allowed the kris cringle story to be created. NOW known as SATAN CLAWS, As anyone every really thought.
 
Last edited:

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
You need to get past your fantasy that I am forever indebted an unlimited amount of money to pay for my limited use of infrastructure. You wield this supposed debt to society as a weapon to remove any claim regarding personal responsibility or merit.

In your system, everything I am is owed to someone else, and that is a debt which can never be paid to people who are long dead; I can claim no credit for anything I achieve, but society as a whole can claim credit for all of it; no matter the amount of work, time, energy, and effort I put into my innovation, I have no responsibility for it and owe it all to previous generations. Thus, we see that we owe everything in our society to Adam and Eve, without whom none of us could accomplish anything. Because of Adam and Eve, I have an unlimited debt to every other person in society. Because of Adam and Eve, I have no claim to the merits or fruits of my labor. But other people who are also not Adam and Eve have a claim to the fruits of my labor. This is the underlying foundation of your system as you described it. Your system sucks.

My system is one in which I pay a nominal fee for using a product or service. This fee may be proportional to the amount of the product or service I use. Thus, I have a claim to the fruits of my labor and can claim the merits of that labor after paying my finite debt to society for enabling that labor. This allows me to better myself and society in one go rather than working simply to dig my own grave.

You describe me as a slave to society. Society is my only source of sustenance without which I can accomplish nothing. You fail to see that society exists. Its existence implies that an achievement, such as society, is possible without society. Society is a means to this end. Does society exist to serve individuals or the other way around? Trick question. Individuals are part of society. Thus, the greater good will always be achieved by serving your own needs. If I spend all of my time and effort fulfilling the needs of others or society, I will die and so will all of my dependents.

My ideology is simply this: if I work to earn something, then the earning is mine. If I have expenses along the way (e.g. the use of infrastructure), then that is an expense that is deducted from my earnings. I am responsible if I screw up, and I get the merit if I succeed. Your ideology is that no one is responsible for anything and no one has any merit: you have given society credit for everything. The corollary is that society is responsible for everyone and everything. Since society is simply a means to an end and can never produce anything by itself, your system (which is increasingly approximated by our current government) fails. When no one is responsible for anyone, when everyone is simply a cog in the wheel of society, and when everyone is infinitely beholden to society, everyone becomes a slave to society: the individual exists to serve society rather than society serving the individual.


What you are capable of producing on your own is maybe enough food and shelter to survive to middle age, if you can defend yourself from everybody else while you're doing it.

that isn't hyperbole, it's a fact. So compare that to the life you actually live, and everything that goes beyond barely surviving, or for most of us dieing, and almost all the value of that comes from you're being part of a society.

Unless you are capable of something extraordinarily valuable to society, in which case society rewards you greatly.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Your ideology is simplistic, not simply.

If you benefit from the roads, who pays? If you benefit from the availability of educated workers to hire, who pays? If they're available because their parents had government assistance for something, who pays? If you do not suffer crime because of criminal justice and anti-poverty programs, who pays? If you eat safe food because the government enforces standards and laws, who pays?
I pay whether or not I hire educated workers. I pay whether or not I use the roads. I pay whether or not anyone I've ever met has benefited from government assistance. I pay regardless of whether I utilize criminal justice and anti-poverty programs. I pay whether or not I eat foods regulated by the government. If I were a subsistence farmer living in the woods, but somehow still had an income because I use carrier pigeons to deliver corn husks to buyers who similarly use carrier pigeons to order my poetry, I would still be expected to pay for all of these things even though I derive no benefit from them. If my corn husk business was successful, I would pay even more for all of these things that I don't use.
There are thousands of such examples of what happens in a society.

Guess what: there are only a few spots for the heads of companies like major car companies. Efficiencies dictate we won't have a million car makers where you can be CEO - but the small number we do have will ineitably gain by the efforts and wealth of thousands of workers, millions of customers - that's not the CEO creating the billions of wealth, it's him playing one role in an efficient system.
What about my one-man business in which I am the CEO and inventor of the cure for the common cold? I owe society because I have a huge customer base? That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion. Those people would be there and need my product whether or not society, let alone government, even existed.
Your whole narcissistic model that you do it is a lie that feeds a harmful ideology.

You have a point to a point. There's some legitimacy to what you want. But you take it to illegitimate extremes, it seems.
You take the absolute extreme: that no matter what, I need "society," and to you, society is government. Since you have decided that government is necessary for everything and everyone, you fail to realize that this implies that the individual exists solely to please the whim of government. The more "benefits" the government gives, the more indebted every individual is to government. It is hardly narcissistic to say that the application of my mind and labor to complete an achievement which has potential benefits for a large portion of the population warrants a reward for me. It is simply your philosophy that leads you to conclude that I owe this to society and deserve no credit for it myself - that the fruits of my labor belong to everyone but me.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
What you are capable of producing on your own is maybe enough food and shelter to survive to middle age, if you can defend yourself from everybody else while you're doing it.

that isn't hyperbole, it's a fact. So compare that to the life you actually live, and everything that goes beyond barely surviving, or for most of us dieing, and almost all the value of that comes from you're being part of a society.

Unless you are capable of something extraordinarily valuable to society, in which case society rewards you greatly.
You are demonstrably wrong. The proof is all around you: people managed to innovate and better themselves long before government or any civilization or society existed. Government, society, and even codes of law are some of these innovations. Thus, your "fact" is simply a misinterpretation of reality.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
What you are capable of producing on your own is maybe enough food and shelter to survive to middle age, if you can defend yourself from everybody else while you're doing it.

that isn't hyperbole, it's a fact. So compare that to the life you actually live, and everything that goes beyond barely surviving, or for most of us dieing, and almost all the value of that comes from you're being part of a society.

Unless you are capable of something extraordinarily valuable to society, in which case society rewards you greatly.
You keep conflating the benefits of a society with the benefits of government. Why?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
You are demonstrably wrong. The proof is all around you: people managed to innovate and better themselves long before government or any civilization or society existed. Government, society, and even codes of law are some of these innovations. Thus, your "fact" is simply a misinterpretation of reality.

umm, people is plural, people are not the "individual".

Which is the whole reason that your position about the individual isn't reality. The human individual can accomplish virtually nothing on his own, we aren't sharks, we probably would be extinct if we didn't function as groups.

Society is just a larger group, and government is the only means to "govern" societies.
 
Last edited:

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
umm, people is plural, people are not the "individual".
People are individuals. Individuals innovate. Society does not. Individuals innovated before anything resembling society existed. Where did society come from? When did people stop killing each other and start hanging out in large groups? When did people start killing each other again within these groups?
Which is the whole reason that your position about the individual isn't reality. The human individual can accomplish virtually nothing on his own, we aren't sharks, we probably would be extinct if we didn't function as groups.

Society is just a larger group, and government is the only means to "govern" societies.
Did the first human function as part of a group of humans? Can hermits survive? Has "society" ever invented anything?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
People are individuals. Individuals innovate. Society does not. Individuals innovated before anything resembling society existed. Where did society come from? When did people stop killing each other and start hanging out in large groups? When did people start killing each other again within these groups?

Did the first human function as part of a group of humans? Can hermits survive? Has "society" ever invented anything?

Yea, i'd say whatever preceded humans functioned as a group too.

Hermits that make their own tools, i don't know any. But i guess we wouldn't know would we, since they're hermits.

Society allows specialization to flourish, which means individuals have the time to innovate. and a means of compensation for those innovations which encourages their development.

It's impossible to discuss what human activity was like before society, since it's always existed as far as we know.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
I didn't say anything about government in the post you're responding too so I don't know what you mean.
It is within the context of your rationale for the justification of a certain taxation regime. That much is clear from the thread. You and Bowfinger argue for the legitimacy of broad and essentially limitless taxation, as being justified by the rich benefits which "society" brings. This all within a framework which marginalizes the possibility that many such benefits could be provided very well by institutional frameworks which do not employ forced coercion to raise their funds.

True the post I quoted does not explicitly talk about government but I only quoted the most recent post as a means of addressing you directly while preserving continuity. If it makes it easier to interpret, please take my comment as addressing the totality of your posts in the thread.
 
Last edited:

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Yea, i'd say whatever preceded humans functioned as a group too.

Hermits that make their own tools, i don't know any. But i guess we wouldn't know would we, since they're hermits.

Society allows specialization to flourish, which means individuals have the time to innovate. and a means of compensation for those innovations which encourages their development.

It's impossible to discuss what human activity was like before society, since it's always existed as far as we know.
I'm hardly a history buff, but I highly recommend you brush up on yours. "Society" has done plenty to stifle innovation over the millenia. Most of the greatest periods of innovation in history involve collaboration of a few wealthy individuals with men of extraordinary talent (e.g. the Medici during the Renaissance). Whether this is true today is certainly debatable, but you have already decided that "society" is due all credit for everything without understanding what society is.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Society is the set of relations among people, including their social status and roles."

note- the Renaissance took place in a very evolved society, I find it hard to believe you don't see this..
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
"Society is the set of relations among people, including their social status and roles."

note- the Renaissance took place in a very evolved society, I find it hard to believe you don't see this..
Yet "society" as a whole contributed virtually nothing. The innovations which arose came from interactions between infinitesimal subsets of all of society, yet the benefits applied to society as a whole. In other words, 99.99% of society contributed nothing to the process of innovation, yet 100% reaped the rewards.
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
Yet "society" as a whole contributed virtually nothing. The innovations which arose came from interactions between infinitesimal subsets of all of society, yet the benefits applied to society as a whole. In other words, 99.99% of society contributed nothing to the process of innovation, yet 100% reaped the rewards.

That's a ridiculous notion. Just because you're not the guy who had the "eureka" moment, does not discredit you from having made contribution for such innovation. Let's use NASA and space exploration as example. How many useful devices and services has come out of that program? Who paid for the program? You can easily see that there were countless "invisible" contributor to the success of the program, from a unknown tax payer in middle of nowhere, to the janitor in flight center making sure the floors were clean. It's shame that we only celebrate those that are figureheads of success, and are indifferent to the hundreds and thousands who held up those figureheads by their shoulders.

Let's draw from your example, the one-man show. Will you be able to realistically keep track of "pay as I use" system for utilizing infrastructure? Do you expect to be able to "innovate" when you're spending all of your time making sure you don't "take advantage" of society in your pursuit of success? I hope you see how ridiculous the notion of "one man success" really is.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
That's a ridiculous notion. Just because you're not the guy who had the "eureka" moment, does not discredit you from having made contribution for such innovation. Let's use NASA and space exploration as example. How many useful devices and services has come out of that program? Who paid for the program? You can easily see that there were countless "invisible" contributor to the success of the program, from a unknown tax payer in middle of nowhere, to the janitor in flight center making sure the floors were clean. It's shame that we only celebrate those that are figureheads of success, and are indifferent to the hundreds and thousands who held up those figureheads by their shoulders.
So if I pitch a penny into a charity jar that funds cancer research, I contributed just as much as the guy who actually did the work? Obviously you don't do research or innovate.
Let's draw from your example, the one-man show. Will you be able to realistically keep track of "pay as I use" system for utilizing infrastructure? Do you expect to be able to "innovate" when you're spending all of your time making sure you don't "take advantage" of society in your pursuit of success? I hope you see how ridiculous the notion of "one man success" really is.
It's not my job to keep track of how much I use - it's the job of the person charging me. Do you keep track of how many minutes you use on your phone every month? Of course not - it's a ridiculous assertion. Your solution is to simply bill me an arbitrary amount which is completely unrelated to how much I use the resource, which is equally ridiculous. It's not my job to worry about whether I'm taking advantage of society, as society exists to serve me. I hope you see how ridiculous your mischaracterization of my position is.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,700
6,257
126
That's a ridiculous notion. Just because you're not the guy who had the "eureka" moment, does not discredit you from having made contribution for such innovation. Let's use NASA and space exploration as example. How many useful devices and services has come out of that program? Who paid for the program? You can easily see that there were countless "invisible" contributor to the success of the program, from a unknown tax payer in middle of nowhere, to the janitor in flight center making sure the floors were clean. It's shame that we only celebrate those that are figureheads of success, and are indifferent to the hundreds and thousands who held up those figureheads by their shoulders.

Let's draw from your example, the one-man show. Will you be able to realistically keep track of "pay as I use" system for utilizing infrastructure? Do you expect to be able to "innovate" when you're spending all of your time making sure you don't "take advantage" of society in your pursuit of success? I hope you see how ridiculous the notion of "one man success" really is.

He seems to totally dismiss any kind of need outside the Individual. Individuals certainly do make Innovations, but they do so because of Societies provisions that make it possible for that Individual to pursue his/her Innovation. Readily available Food, Water, Electricity, etc etc frees the Individual to pursue specific endeavours which would be impossible without those provisions. Otherwise the Individual would only have time to pursue the very Basics of survival.
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
So if I pitch a penny into a charity jar that funds cancer research, I contributed just as much as the guy who actually did the work? Obviously you don't do research or innovate.

I'm actually doing academic research and if YOU do research, you know you build your research on top of hundreds and thousands of other's previous research.

As for the charity comment, it's really funny how important the small contributors are. Have you ever watched Apollo 13? It's a great factual story / movie. Thousands of engineers contributed to saving 3 guys in space. The movie went out of its way to highlight many of the nameless engineers who devised critical solution to keep those 3 guys alive and safely coming back home. It wasn't just one guy, or one small crack team that brought those guys back home. It was the countless people who devoted their time and effort for a common cause. If you actually open up your mind a bit, you'll see such phenomenon is actually what makes our world work, and we're not in huddling in caves.

It's not my job to keep track of how much I use - it's the job of the person charging me. Do you keep track of how many minutes you use on your phone every month? Of course not - it's a ridiculous assertion. Your solution is to simply bill me an arbitrary amount which is completely unrelated to how much I use the resource, which is equally ridiculous. It's not my job to worry about whether I'm taking advantage of society, as society exists to serve me. I hope you see how ridiculous your mischaracterization of my position is.

See? That's sociopath. Classic example of it too. What prevents the society for kicking you out? The sheer incredible generosity of others. There really is no way to argue against something that's blatantly wrong. I suggest you follow your view to the extreme and live in a unsettled land by yourself.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
He seems to totally dismiss any kind of need outside the Individual. Individuals certainly do make Innovations, but they do so because of Societies provisions that make it possible for that Individual to pursue his/her Innovation. Readily available Food, Water, Electricity, etc etc frees the Individual to pursue specific endeavours which would be impossible without those provisions. Otherwise the Individual would only have time to pursue the very Basics of survival.
Are you literate? I specifically stated that I would be perfectly willing to pay for any resources I utilize. This obviously conveys, to any literate person, that I understand full well that I cannot do everything on my own. But to say that the guy filling potholes so I can get to my lab every day is just as intrinsic to the innovation process as I am is absolute BS. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot. The person in charge of producing water gets paid to produce water. The person who innovates gets paid when he innovates. I'm sorry that your axiomatic collectivist viewpoint is so ingrained that you can't admit this possibility.