People should work for what they have

[spidey07]

Sorry I started a "troll thread" to try to have a discussion about something on my mind. I respect your opinion, even though I don't feel you've adequately explained it. Is it alright if anyone else posts their opinion, or should the thread end now that you have deemed it a closed matter?

If you can't see the very clear difference then nobody can help you. It's been explained many times over.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sorry I started a "troll thread" to try to have a discussion about something on my mind. I respect your opinion, even though I don't feel you've adequately explained it. Is it alright if anyone else posts their opinion, or should the thread end now that you have deemed it a closed matter?

I don't know what the confusion here is to be honest, nor do I understand where many of the people (many of the usual left-leaning posters) are coming from with their views. I'll quote you below and then explain.

The question is do you see hypocrisy in allowing inheritance children to never have to work or earn anything while saying others should have to work for everything they get?

If I work all my life and bank a few million and suddenly die, why should the government get all of it instead of my family? What on earth did the government do to deserve that money? I worked for it, I paid taxes on it, so why shouldn't I dictate where it goes? Really, what difference does it make to you or anyone else if my kids inherit millions and don't work, as long as they are self-sufficient and you aren't supporting them? As a matter-of-fact, why should they take a job someone else could use (and would need) if they don't need it from a financial perspective?

I don't see the hypocrisy here because someone worked for those millions and that person should dictate who gets the money once he/she dies, not Uncle Sam. In this case, this person might decide to give it to his/her kids and yes, they may not have to work again. So? Why is that a problem, seriously? Sure, it might suck to look in the news and see a no-talent hack like Paris Hilton being worth millions, but you know what? Life isn't fair. Some people get lucky and inherit wealth, some work hard and acquire it, some work hard and never get it, and still others don't work and seem to survive just fine.

 

[TheBDB]

If you can't see the very clear difference then nobody can help you. It's been explained many times over.

Feel free to stop posting in this thread any time.

 

[TheBDB]

I don't know what the confusion here is to be honest, nor do I understand where many of the people (many of the usual left-leaning posters) are coming from with their views. I'll quote you below and then explain.



If I work all my life and bank a few million and suddenly die, why should the government get all of it instead of my family? What on earth did the government do to deserve that money? I worked for it, I paid taxes on it, so why shouldn't I dictate where it goes? Really, what difference does it make to you or anyone else if my kids inherit millions and don't work, as long as they are self-sufficient and you aren't supporting them? As a matter-of-fact, why should they take a job someone else could use (and would need) if they don't need it from a financial perspective?

I don't see the hypocrisy here because someone worked for those millions and that person should dictate who gets the money once he/she dies, not Uncle Sam. In this case, this person might decide to give it to his/her kids and yes, they may not have to work again. So? Why is that a problem, seriously? Sure, it might suck to look in the news and see a no-talent hack like Paris Hilton being worth millions, but you know what? Life isn't fair. Some people get lucky and inherit wealth, some work hard and acquire it, some work hard and never get it, and still others don't work and seem to survive just fine.

I agree with what you are saying. That isn't what I'm talking about. Don't get caught up thinking about the government taking someones wealth or the redistribution of wealth. It's not about paying a debt to society. I'm talking about the principle of individual responsibility and hard work.

If you don't understand what I am talking about fine, just let the thread die.

 

[Atreus21]

I agree with what you are saying. That isn't what I'm talking about. Don't get caught up thinking about the government taking someones wealth or the redistribution of wealth. It's not about paying a debt to society. I'm talking about the principle of individual responsibility and hard work.

If you don't understand what I am talking about fine, just let the thread die.

There is no shirking of responsibility from living off the fortune your ancestors legally amassed so that you might live an easier life.

And if the beneficiaries of this inheritance do not live responsibly, they will lose it. Being rich doesn't free us from responsibility.

I think I can identify with part of what you're trying to get across. I bought my camaro with $5000 I spent a year saving up, while my friend's dad bought him a ZO6 when he was 17. I bragged the entire time about how I earned mine. Sure, earning something yourself does bring bragging rights with it, but that doesn't mean my friend's ZO6 was ill-gotten, or illegitimate. His dad was responsible with his money and was wealthy as a result, and was thus able to buy his son a nice car.

Not surprisingly, my friend learned responsibility the hard way after he wrecked that brand new ZO6 speeding.

Responsibility is learned one way or the other. We don't need government mandating it.

 

[MJinZ]

I agree with what you are saying. That isn't what I'm talking about. Don't get caught up thinking about the government taking someones wealth or the redistribution of wealth. It's not about paying a debt to society. I'm talking about the principle of individual responsibility and hard work.

If you don't understand what I am talking about fine, just let the thread die.

You're asking how someone reconciles their belief in individual responsibility and hard work with leaving a large inheritance for their children.

These are not mutually exclusive. THAT is what you fail to understand.

Leaving your kids millions doesn't mean you don't expect them or teach them to work hard. Just because they drive a million dollar Bugatti, doesn't mean they don't work hard anyway.

Society is the same way. Everything you have now - public roads, running water, shelter and food, mass production - they were all LEFT for you by the progenitors. YOU didn't do anything to deserve them, other than being a descendent. So why don't YOU go into the forest, build your own house, and hunt your own food then? That's personal responsibility and hard work ethics right?

 

[MotF Bane]

I agree with what you are saying. That isn't what I'm talking about. Don't get caught up thinking about the government taking someones wealth or the redistribution of wealth. It's not about paying a debt to society. I'm talking about the principle of individual responsibility and hard work.

If you don't understand what I am talking about fine, just let the thread die.

So you want the government to enforce that everyone must work hard and be individually responsible to gain their wealth?

 

[highland145]

So you want the government to enforce that everyone must work hard and be individually responsible to gain their wealth?

I'd settle for the gubment not giving handouts. That would force your post.

 

[cubby1223]

It's interesting - the guy on the talk radio here in Chicago this week has been talking about pan-handling. The good pan-handlers are bringing in $100+k per year begging on the streets. Is that right? Should pan-handling be illegal? Would that mean any giving of wealth from one person to another must be overseen by the government?

It's a complex world because there rarely is a one-size-fits-all solution.


That's why it is not hypocrisy to say people should work for what they have, while at the same time saying it should not be a law, something that forces everyone to work.

 

[Steeplerot]

The answer is Socialism or Barbarism. There is no other choice for the species in the long run.

Maybe not Socialism as we knew it in the 20th century but a resource based command economy instead of a profit-based (wasteful) one.

 

[MotF Bane]

The answer is Socialism or Barbarism. There is no other choice for the species in the long run.

Maybe not Socialism as we knew it in the 20th century but a resource based command economy instead of a profit-based (wasteful) one.

No, that is not the answer, and history has already shown it. As with many of the others who have already posted here, you allow your ideology to blind you.

 

[Steeplerot]

No, that is not the answer, and history has already shown it. As with many of the others who have already posted here, you allow your ideology to blind you.

Ayn Rand is not historic, sorry, it's fiction.

 

[Steeplerot]

I am curious what all the randian folks her think society will be like once a good chunk of working class jobs are replaced by automation in the not-too distant future?

Should the workers die as they have no way of earning?

Would you be willing to give up your ideology at this point as we have moved on as a species?

Ever thought of these things? You should, as your ideology becomes more and more outdated and laughable. Monkey people, hit with bone take stuff all for me! rrrrrraaawwwrr!

 

[daishi5]

You think it's communism to think a person should not be left to starve to death if for no other reason than simply by virtue of being a human? You're probably one of the many, many folks keeping us in the "just animals" category.

24,000 children will die today due to a lack of the very basic necessities. If you truly believe a person should not be left to starve to death, may I suggest you donate your excess wealth to UNICEF. If you would like I have a list of several other very good charities that work to provide for the poor and starving. And by excess wealth, I mean anything more than you need for basic food and shelter.

But, the truth of the matter is that almost everyone really does think that those people should be left to starve to death. Very few of them are willing to admit it, or even face their own hypocrisy, like yourself.

Millions of people every day make the decision to buy a latte instead of saving a child's life. I would be willing to bet you spent at least a few thousand dollars on your own enjoyment, when you could have chosen to spend that money saving poor children from starvation. Unless you are a living saint, you are also one of the folks keeping us in the "just animals" category.

Have you ever eaten out? For the price of a decent restaurant meal, you could purchase more than 10 mosquito nets to protect infants and pregnant mothers who are most at risk. What type of decent human being values a nice meal more than the lives of the downtrodden?

If you spent just $10,000 less on your house, you could have fed a starving child for years. I bet you are an animal that never even considered all the poor children who could have been saved in exchange for you having a smaller house.

For the cost of the internet you used to berate someone else for being an "animal" you could have vaccinated around 20 children per month against polio.

Face it, your an animal just like everyone else. And you don't sacrifice what you earned with your own work to give to those without. You want them all to be fed and clothed, but I doubt you have truly given up what you don't need to try help the truly poor. I know I haven't, and no one else has either.

 

[MJinZ]

I am curious what all the randian folks her think society will be like once a good chunk of working class jobs are replaced by automation in the not-too distant future?

Should the workers die as they have no way of earning?

Would you be willing to give up your ideology at this point as we have moved on as a species?

Ever thought of these things? You should, as your ideology becomes more and more outdated and laughable. Monkey people, hit with bone take stuff all for me! rrrrrraaawwwrr!

Ideologies are worthless.

Humans are not fit for many forms of socialism or communism because we are not at the advanced stage of evolution. We are too independent, selfish, petty and capricious for that to work.

Eventually, we might evolve, if not socially, at least technologically to a point where such a utopian state may be the easiest way, if not the most righteous.

 

[her209]

1. Take out life insurance.
2. Die.
3. Your family collects on money.

 

[Steeplerot]

Easy enough to say ideologies are bunk, but the world does not change without ideologues changing things.

We would still be stuck in monarchies and feudalism without. (Capitalism and wage slavery are just the last leg of feudalism standing)

Corporate CEO and the "rich" are the last of the "chosen" to be worshiped as more deserving then the average man. Somehow more noble as they have accumulated wealth in a society based off a labor exploration of the third world.

We either nuke ourselves over petty resource wars when we have plenty because our ideology is outdated or carry on with a new system utilizing our technology.

The point is for us NOT to have to work. Not to be slaves to some galactic-wide corporation shoveling moon rocks with our bare gloved hands for a few rich dudes back on planet.

As I said, Socialism or Barbarism, there is no choice. And time is something we do not have endless heaps of come 60 years or so. Capitalism has shown like religion it is not adaptable to the needs of society when it is not within the profit motive or private industry's best interests.

Dunno what my future trip is today. But it is a interesting thing to ponder.

 

[MJinZ]

24,000 children will die today due to a lack of the very basic necessities. If you truly believe a person should not be left to starve to death, may I suggest you donate your excess wealth to UNICEF. If you would like I have a list of several other very good charities that work to provide for the poor and starving. And by excess wealth, I mean anything more than you need for basic food and shelter.

But, the truth of the matter is that almost everyone really does think that those people should be left to starve to death. Very few of them are willing to admit it, or even face their own hypocrisy, like yourself.

Millions of people every day make the decision to buy a latte instead of saving a child's life. I would be willing to bet you spent at least a few thousand dollars on your own enjoyment, when you could have chosen to spend that money saving poor children from starvation. Unless you are a living saint, you are also one of the folks keeping us in the "just animals" category.

Have you ever eaten out? For the price of a decent restaurant meal, you could purchase more than 10 mosquito nets to protect infants and pregnant mothers who are most at risk. What type of decent human being values a nice meal more than the lives of the downtrodden?

If you spent just $10,000 less on your house, you could have fed a starving child for years. I bet you are an animal that never even considered all the poor children who could have been saved in exchange for you having a smaller house.

For the cost of the internet you used to berate someone else for being an "animal" you could have vaccinated around 20 children per month against polio.

Face it, your an animal just like everyone else. And you don't sacrifice what you earned with your own work to give to those without. You want them all to be fed and clothed, but I doubt you have truly given up what you don't need to try help the truly poor. I know I haven't, and no one else has either.

Collectively, we have all decided this. OUR safety and prosperity is worth more than the lives of African children. We spend more on war and defense than that which could eliminate poverty in the world again and again and again.

Indeed, no one is really any more noble.

But then again, what are you really looking for? This is Capitalism. Individualism. No free lunches. Charities? Look to wealthy individuals or guilty religious. This is America.

 

[MotF Bane]

Ayn Rand is not historic, sorry, it's fiction.

That's not what I am referencing, as you well know. You simple refuse to admit the failings of your ideological system, steeplebot.

 

[daishi5]

Collectively, we have all decided this. OUR safety and prosperity is worth more than the lives of African children. We spend more on war and defense than that which could eliminate poverty in the world again and again and again.

Indeed, no one is really any more noble.

But then again, what are you really looking for? This is Capitalism. Individualism. No free lunches. Charities? Look to wealthy individuals or guilty religious. This is America.

Sorry, he touched a sore spot, I think I have had to deal with too many people who think they are good people just because they want other people to help the poor.

 

[Steeplerot]

Eventually, we might evolve, if not socially, at least technologically to a point where such a utopian state may be the easiest way, if not the most righteous.

We shall see, but the stakes become higher and the risk increase with the scaling of our technological advancement. We once could bomb cities from the sky. Now we can exterminate the species pretty much with a few shortages of resources in key places on the globe where wealth is concentrated. This is putting all your eggs in one basket, a highly neurotic, self-serving and divided basket.

Capitalism must go. But how and what will take its place is the big question.

But making capitalism itself a religion to never be criticized is foolish.

(I am not pointing you out MJinZ, just musing)

 

[Steeplerot]

That's not what I am referencing, as you well know. You simple refuse to admit the failings of your ideological system, steeplebot.

If you are trying to pin a Leninist/Marxist label on me again, sorry. As I have stated before I am not a Marxist. State Capitalism has shown to be a failure as much here in USA as in the USSR.

The world has moved on, and you folks are left behind in the cold war. lol!

 

[Lakedaimon]

We can toss aside the whole Inheritance Tax issue by just having the government seize all children at birth. Then there wont be so much resistance to a 100% death tax. Besides im sure the government would be better at raising your kids than you. Just like they are better and more efficient at using your income than you could ever hope to be.

re: panhandlers

the local news followed around a couple of the most infamous beggars in Detroit for a couple days. One of them, known as the "got a dollar?" lady was probably the most pathetic looking. Wizened and dirty she got a fair share of sympathy - to the tune of $100 a day on average. Turned out she was also a ward of the state, had her own room at a halfway house/shelter and got 3 square meals a day and a little money for busfare and whatnot. She would waste the money she got panhandling on scratch off tickets and cheetos for the pigeons (i always wondered why they were all over the sidewalks). And of course she would just go to the bathroom in alleys downtown.

Once saw another pandhandler leave his corner and drive off in a lexus when it started to rain. It wasnt like a brand new model or anything, but it was better than what I was driving by a wide margin

 

[blackangst1]

Niiice dodge! I thought individual responsibility was about people earning their own money. Apparently that only applies to people who aren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth...

You really are trying to have it both ways. Even you should be able to see that.

As to the whole bit about infinite wealth, I'd contend that at any moment in the modern world, wealth is, indeed, finite. When the frontier was open, it could be considered to be infinite, because much of it wasn't claimed. Doesn't mean that more can't be created over time, particularly if what already exists isn't locked up in the hands of a generational aristocracy.

The thing is, I can, and do believe, in both ways. On one hand one should not count on inheritance, and on the other, make sure they provide for themselves. In many cases, with the exception of uber wealth which is rare, alot of wealth is derived from family type businesses/corporations. And many times, the children work in these companies. So no, I dont see a problem with it.

As a side point to this, maybe you can explain why if someone amasses say, 10 or 20 million in assets, why they owe the federal government? They played by the rules of this country, they should do what they see fit with it. Period. No one loses anything if someone passes wealth to another.

And your analogy of finite wealth in regards to the old frontier days is irrelevant. Why? Because nowadays, most wealth is electronic/virtual. In fact, if you get direct deposit for your job, your measley net worth is virtual as well. These things didnt exist back then. So irrelevant.

 

[blackangst1]

I agree with what you are saying. That isn't what I'm talking about. Don't get caught up thinking about the government taking someones wealth or the redistribution of wealth. It's not about paying a debt to society. I'm talking about the principle of individual responsibility and hard work.

If you don't understand what I am talking about fine, just let the thread die.

The thing is, its not always about hard work and responsibility, and never has been. Luck plays a part as well. And that has nothing to do with your values, upbringing, or beliefs. The fact is, some very hard working honest dedicated people die penniless, and some happen to catch a wave of something popular, or win the lottery, and might be the most dishonest douchebags on the planet. Fair? No. Reality? Yes. Either way, its their money to do with what they want.