Do you agree? It is immoral to be rich.

[bunchbikes]

So, I guess the true question becomes "is slavery more or less moral than taking something that belongs to someone else?"

If it's immoral to take something that belongs to someone else then morally we should eliminate all taxes.
If we eliminate all taxes, then the government has no funding to pay soldiers.
Therefore, if it's immoral to take something that belongs to someone else, then morally we must re-instate the draft.

Or is there a fault in my logic that I'm not seeing?

There are ways to generate government revenue other than through compulsory methods like income taxation.  i.e. tarriffs.

The United Arab Emirates has no income tax, and the people are not yet enslaved.  Should we be worried for them?

But like someone else, you also bring up the Butterfly Effect... which I think makes trying to "nail down" morality, or turning any complex discussion into a black/white issue, is a futile exercise (i.e. facebook politics).  Any choice has repercussions, and it's impossible to see all of the future implications of a decision to determine if it was a good or bad.

[Jrr85]

That the main Walton heirs have more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US Population (many who work for walmart)and continue to grow that by essentially exploiting that same population is totally immoral to me - thus that is some immoral wealth right there.

Isn't it the case that anyone with a positive net worth, even a single penny, has more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US population, since so many people have negative net worth?

I've seen this statistic thrown around quite a bit and I think it's kind of disingenuous.

It's at least 15 - 20% depending on which source you go with.

I haven't noticed anyone else bring this up yet, so I will: Walmart's profit margin runs around 3%

https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/profit_margin
https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Wal-Mart-Stores-Inc/Ratios/Profitability
https://www.aei.org/publication/every-month-walmart-gets-one-profit-day-from-its-sales-while-apple-gets-7-5/

which seems to be average in retail.

It's always funny to see the people responsible for the most effective anti-poverty program in history get villified.  Neither Walmart nor its owners/management are perfect, but there are very few people that can claim to have done more for the poor (and done it while paying higher than average wages for retail work; it's also one of the few companies where a disadvantaged but smart and hardworking person can come in without college education and still advance and make real money). 

Walmart is evil for making 3% margins, but somehow all the tech darlings with margins 3, 5, or more than 7 times higher are somehow not exploiting their workers or customers.   

[bunchbikes]

I would say that individuals in a society have a general obligation to contribute to the betterment of the society to an extent that is reasonable and to the extent that they are able. This does not mean that it is inherently good or bad to have resources, or not have them for that matter. 

I loved your post. Very well thought out.

So citizens have an obligation to contribute to the extent that they are able....  How many people in our society are really contributing what they are able?  Everyone is able to contribute more than they currently are. 

On the other hand, What is contributing to an extent that is reasonable?  Does this mean rich are obligated to contribute more than they currently do?  How would reasonable be defined?  A percentage of income? An absolute dollar amount ceiling, over which all money is contributed to society?

[shenlong55]

There are ways to generate government revenue other than through compulsory methods like income taxation.  i.e. tarriffs.

The United Arab Emirates has no income tax, and the people are not yet enslaved.  Should we be worried for them?

But like someone else, you also bring up the Butterfly Effect... which I think makes trying to "nail down" morality, or turning any complex discussion into a black/white issue, is a futile exercise (i.e. facebook politics).  Any choice has repercussions, and it's impossible to see all of the future implications of a decision to determine if it was a good or bad.

Your original question was whether it is immoral to take something that belongs to another, not whether it is immoral to take income that belongs to another citizen.  Tariffs are still taxes, just a different kind of tax on different people .  So are property taxes, sales taxes and VAT's.  They all take something that, within your frame at least, belongs to someone else.  So it seems to me that if taxation is immoral, then our choices are reduced to either having an immoral government or no government at all.

[Glenstache]

I would say that individuals in a society have a general obligation to contribute to the betterment of the society to an extent that is reasonable and to the extent that they are able. This does not mean that it is inherently good or bad to have resources, or not have them for that matter. 

I loved your post. Very well thought out.

So citizens have an obligation to contribute to the extent that they are able....  How many people in our society are really contributing what they are able?  Everyone is able to contribute more than they currently are. 

On the other hand, What is contributing to an extent that is reasonable?  Does this mean rich are obligated to contribute more than they currently do?  How would reasonable be defined?  A percentage of income? An absolute dollar amount ceiling, over which all money is contributed to society?

This is the difference between policy and principle. The thread title is fundamentally principle. The question you are asking is policy.
Step 1: agree on a principle
Step 2: figure out a policy based on that principle. Implementation of a principle is always awash in details. Something as simple as "don't kill people" quickly can get mired in the details of self defense, crimes of passion vs pre-meditation, etc.
I left "extent able" vague on purpose. It includes or allows everything from a flat tax (with low income exemption, threshold also intentionally vague) to a progressive tax structure. There is much room to debate those policy issues.

Personally, I think that a progressive tax structure is appropriate, but that it should not reach 100%. This is because the additional value-added at the individual level of a dollar earned at a high amount is less than a dollar earned at a lower income. If you $10 in a day, you can eat, so a 10% tax makes you hungry. If you earn $100 in a day, a tax of  %10 has less impact. (please, please, please take these numbers as an example and don't go into the rabbit hole of what people reasonably earn in a day).  Marginal tax rates work well in this sense. I also think these decisions should be made more on pragmatic grounds than ideological ones. (Side note: you may not be surprised to learn that I dislike Grover Norquist's tax pledge).

I do not think there is some magic % tax rate, because the revenue needs of government are variable through time, maybe the shape of the tax curve should vary according to income distribution over time.

My ability to grow and build wealth is due to the success of the society I live in. It is reasonable that I be expected to contribute to that. If I am able to earn more, that is in part due to the economy I exist in and it is okay for me to be expected to pay more back into the pooled resources.

[Tyson]

I am ambivalent about taxing the rich.  Part of me wants to tax the wealthy more because they have so much and don't 'need' it.  And every dollar taxed & transferred to the poor has a direct impact of helping the poor.  In other words, $1000 is far more valuable to a struggling family than it is to a billionaire. 

On the other hand, rich people don't just put their $$ into a safety deposit box.  They invest it.  And that investment drives economic growth.  So if we tax the rich to give to the poor, there's an opportunity cost in terms of lower investments. 

When I was young I was certain that I had the right answers to this paradox.  Now that I'm older I'm no longer as sure.

[PaulMaxime]

That the main Walton heirs have more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US Population (many who work for walmart)and continue to grow that by essentially exploiting that same population is totally immoral to me - thus that is some immoral wealth right there.

Isn't it the case that anyone with a positive net worth, even a single penny, has more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US population, since so many people have negative net worth?

I've seen this statistic thrown around quite a bit and I think it's kind of disingenuous.

It's at least 15 - 20% depending on which source you go with.

So, I wonder how many people with positive net worth it will take to overcome the 15-25% who are negative? I suppose that's something that could be calculated if the right data is available.

[fdhs_runner]

That the main Walton heirs have more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US Population (many who work for walmart)and continue to grow that by essentially exploiting that same population is totally immoral to me - thus that is some immoral wealth right there.

Isn't it the case that anyone with a positive net worth, even a single penny, has more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US population, since so many people have negative net worth?

I've seen this statistic thrown around quite a bit and I think it's kind of disingenuous.

It's at least 15 - 20% depending on which source you go with.

So, I wonder how many people with positive net worth it will take to overcome the 15-25% who are negative? I suppose that's something that could be calculated if the right data is available.

Depending on source, the next Quintile up just barely cancels out that bottom 20%: https://www.thebalance.com/american-net-worth-by-state-metropolitan-4135839

Bottom 20 Percent  -$6,029
Next 20 Percent  $7,263
Middle 20 Percent  $68,828
Next 20 Percent  $205,985
Top 20 Percent  $630,754

Also you'll quickly notice in that article that their top Quintile isn't so much "evil rich people" as it is retirees over age 65.

[PaulMaxime]

That the main Walton heirs have more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US Population (many who work for walmart)and continue to grow that by essentially exploiting that same population is totally immoral to me - thus that is some immoral wealth right there.

Isn't it the case that anyone with a positive net worth, even a single penny, has more combined wealth than the bottom 40% or so of the US population, since so many people have negative net worth?

I've seen this statistic thrown around quite a bit and I think it's kind of disingenuous.

It's at least 15 - 20% depending on which source you go with.

So, I wonder how many people with positive net worth it will take to overcome the 15-25% who are negative? I suppose that's something that could be calculated if the right data is available.

Depending on source, the next Quintile up just barely cancels out that bottom 20%: https://www.thebalance.com/american-net-worth-by-state-metropolitan-4135839

Bottom 20 Percent  -$6,029
Next 20 Percent  $7,263
Middle 20 Percent  $68,828
Next 20 Percent  $205,985
Top 20 Percent  $630,754

Also you'll quickly notice in that article that their top Quintile isn't so much "evil rich people" as it is retirees over age 65.

I think that proves my point. Saying that the Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 40% combined is misleading. I probably have more than the bottom 30% or 35% combined and I'm no Walton.

[SwordGuy]

The United Arab Emirates has no income tax, and the people are not yet enslaved.  Should we be worried for them?

Well, we could certainly argue that women in that society are "not free" and are, in some ways, chattel to their father, other male relative in the absence of a father, or their husband.

[SwordGuy]

An American household with a net worth of $0.01 has more net worth - combined!!! - than about half the households in the country.

What does that mean?

It sure as heck does not mean a person with a net worth of $0.01 is rich!   It just means that a whole lot of Americans spend more than they earn.   

You really have to pay close attention to what is claimed in various articles and political arguments.   

What kinds of people have a negative net worth?

Well, here are some folks:

1) A person who has just completed medical school probably has a negative net worth.   I won't be crying a river over their financial prospects, though.

2) A person whose main wealth is in their house, but who bought at the top of the market before property prices dropped 25%.   They still have a nice place to live in at a monthly payment they agreed was worthwhile for the house.  As long as they don't move out of the place, they are still good.

3) A person with a steady job, who rents, who doesn't save because they eat out, go on cruises, etc., and who drives a car they bought in the last year or two.   Yet, unlike the nobility on Downton Abbey who have to eat the same cook's food every day, they can pick their cook on a whim.   They drive a vehicle they chose to purchase, which is probably more expensive than it needs to be. (Median new car price is about $33,000 but you can buy a perfectly good new car for $13,000.)   And don't get me going about the hedonistic adaptation to pleasure cruises to foreign climes.

All of these people may have perfectly good jobs and live very luxurious lives.   They just have not chosen to apply their financial resources to creating wealth.   And they, for the most part, are quite happy with that decision.

[Cranberries]

The United Arab Emirates has no income tax, and the people are not yet enslaved.  Should we be worried for them?

The UAE is already a slave country. More than 80 % of the population of the country is made up of migrant workers, many of whom have had their passports taken away and are being forced to work.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/sep/13/migrant-workers-uae-gulf-states-un-ituc
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/04/migrant-workers-uae-saadiyat-island-abu-dhabi-battery-hens
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/abu-dhabi-migrant-workers-conditions-shame-west
http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/middle-east/dubai-migrant-workers-the-hidden-slaves-behind-glamour-city/news-story/b3997ed5b013870424e84d78a561946c
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-slaves-of-dubai
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/29/uae-repression-all-fronts
https://www.thenation.com/article/kingdom-slaves-persian-gulf/
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/23/migrant-domestic-workers-uae-beaten-abused

[Chris22]

I am ambivalent about taxing the rich.  Part of me wants to tax the wealthy more because they have so much and don't 'need' it.  And every dollar taxed & transferred to the poor has a direct impact of helping the poor.

The problem I have is that every dollar taxed on the rich doesn't make it to the poor.  The government is extremely inefficient at transferring wealth from party A to party B, and in the process creates a system that is extremely expensive and now must be maintained, as well as is generally permanent in nature. 

[Tyson]

I am ambivalent about taxing the rich.  Part of me wants to tax the wealthy more because they have so much and don't 'need' it.  And every dollar taxed & transferred to the poor has a direct impact of helping the poor.

The problem I have is that every dollar taxed on the rich doesn't make it to the poor.  The government is extremely inefficient at transferring wealth from party A to party B, and in the process creates a system that is extremely expensive and now must be maintained, as well as is generally permanent in nature.

What's a better alternative?  And I'm going to anticipate your answer of "private charity" and say no to that because it's already possible to give to private charity.  And I'd also note that before these programs existed, private charity did not take care of the poor (hence the need to create the programs in the first place).

So, outside of private charity, what's our options?

[Chris22]

I am ambivalent about taxing the rich.  Part of me wants to tax the wealthy more because they have so much and don't 'need' it.  And every dollar taxed & transferred to the poor has a direct impact of helping the poor.

The problem I have is that every dollar taxed on the rich doesn't make it to the poor.  The government is extremely inefficient at transferring wealth from party A to party B, and in the process creates a system that is extremely expensive and now must be maintained, as well as is generally permanent in nature.

What's a better alternative?  And I'm going to anticipate your answer of "private charity" and say no to that because it's already possible to give to private charity.  And I'd also note that before these programs existed, private charity did not take care of the poor (hence the need to create the programs in the first place).

So, outside of private charity, what's our options?

Demand our government do better with the funds it has before allowing it to take more. Same as you would treat your kid or relative if they came crying to you for money; "well are you blowing money on XYZ before I give you more?"

[Tyson]

Demand our government do better with the funds it has before allowing it to take more. Same as you would treat your kid or relative if they came crying to you for money; "well are you blowing money on XYZ before I give you more?"

Of course I agree that the $$ should be used as effectively as possible.  I don't think anyone would disagree with that!  So how would you do that?  What would the mechanism be?

[Johnez]

Do I think it immoral to exercise a superiority in wealth collection and keep enough to be considered rich? No. There are rich people who do many immoral things, but in honesty they act rationally. The tug of war between wealth accumulating and wealth shared is a necessary one to keep society progressing as a whole. We need  big ideas, but we also need ditches dug. Balance ensures that capable ditch diggers might rise to become the company's CEO.

[Chris22]

Demand our government do better with the funds it has before allowing it to take more. Same as you would treat your kid or relative if they came crying to you for money; "well are you blowing money on XYZ before I give you more?"

Of course I agree that the $$ should be used as effectively as possible.  I don't think anyone would disagree with that!  So how would you do that?  What would the mechanism be?

I have no idea.  But that's why I'm not interested in sending any more money to Washington, they consider raising taxes a more viable solution than just "using what we already get more effectively."  Until they reverse that course at least a little I'm of the mind to "starve the beast."

[Herbert Derp]

I'm totally not buying this Ayn Rand nonsense that rich people being rich somehow helps the poor through investments and the purchase of goods and services. The simple fact is that that money could be put to much more effective use in helping the poor directly.

Trickle-down economics is just another morally questionable technique that certain people use to feel better about themselves. Honestly, it's no different than rich people making token donations to charities when they could have given much more.

But this doesn't have to be a moral dilemma. I think the mistake people make is assuming there is some sort of moral imperative to help others. I don't believe that such an imperative exists. I may freely choose to help others--but ultimately, their problems are their own. I've got my own problems to deal with and goals in life to strive for, and there's only so much time we have left before we all die. Let's just live out our own lives.

However, this view doesn't have to be incompatible with living in a society where wealth is redistributed. I think Glenstache made a good point earlier on:

I think we get the society we pay for.  There is a benefit to society in helping those less fortunate, and providing public services. The resources to accomplish these things requires distribution of pooled resources. If I want to live in a society that is literate, that doesn't discard a portion of the population due to mental health, general health, or just hard knocks, then I have an obligation to pay for it. If I do not pay for it, then I am a free loader. And if we can help those people get to the point where they are doing well, then I expect them to put back into the pool too. Does this infringe on the libertarian view of personal liberty? Of course it does. But to think that we can live in a society without obligation back to the society is a fiction/fantasy.

Taxes are simply the price we pay to enjoy the benefits of modern society. If you don't like them, go somewhere else--you probably won't enjoy it very much. I for one quite enjoy the benefits of living in my society and will happily continue to pay my taxes. But this has nothing to do with morality. It's just the price I that I pay to live in this society--morally speaking, it's no different than paying a subscription fee for a newspaper.

[fdhs_runner]

2) A person whose main wealth is in their house, but who bought at the top of the market before property prices dropped 25%.   They still have a nice place to live in at a monthly payment they agreed was worthwhile for the house.  As long as they don't move out of the place, they are still good.

3) A person with a steady job, who rents, who doesn't save because they eat out, go on cruises, etc., and who drives a car they bought in the last year or two.   Yet, unlike the nobility on Downton Abbey who have to eat the same cook's food every day, they can pick their cook on a whim.   They drive a vehicle they chose to purchase, which is probably more expensive than it needs to be. (Median new car price is about $33,000 but you can buy a perfectly good new car for $13,000.)   And don't get me going about the hedonistic adaptation to pleasure cruises to foreign climes.

All of these people may have perfectly good jobs and live very luxurious lives.   They just have not chosen to apply their financial resources to creating wealth.   And they, for the most part, are quite happy with that decision.

I've talked to quite a few people in those boats and it's always amusing when they complain about wealth inequality.

[MDM]

Taxes are simply the price we pay to enjoy the benefits of modern society.

Most will agree with this.

Getting consensus on exactly what that price should be, and the related issue of the value one receives for that price, is more difficult.

[Tyson]

Taxes are simply the price we pay to enjoy the benefits of modern society.

Most will agree with this.

Getting consensus on exactly what that price should be, and the related issue of the value one receives for that price, is more difficult.

The biggest divide I see is rural vs urban.  It's easier to see tax dollars at work in a city and harder to justify taxes in small towns and rural areas. 

[RetiredAt63]

Taxes are simply the price we pay to enjoy the benefits of modern society.

Most will agree with this.

Getting consensus on exactly what that price should be, and the related issue of the value one receives for that price, is more difficult.

The biggest divide I see is rural vs urban.  It's easier to see tax dollars at work in a city and harder to justify taxes in small towns and rural areas.

I'm rural, I see my tax dollars at work.  We need to look at different levels of government.  My municipality does things that I see directly using my tax dollars (garbage collection, snow clearing of roads, recreational services, etc.).  My province does things that affect me a bit less directly (i.e. education, health care, etc.) but I still see the use of my tax dollars.  The federal government is supposed to make sure the whole country runs well, so a lot of their spending will be obvious if I need a program (EI, OAS, etc.) and some is just running a country - not of immediate obvious direct benefit to me, but still of general benefit and needs to be done if the country is to function.  And I will certainly see the downside if they stop doing those things.

[Tyson]

Taxes are simply the price we pay to enjoy the benefits of modern society.

Most will agree with this.

Getting consensus on exactly what that price should be, and the related issue of the value one receives for that price, is more difficult.

The biggest divide I see is rural vs urban.  It's easier to see tax dollars at work in a city and harder to justify taxes in small towns and rural areas.

I'm rural, I see my tax dollars at work.  We need to look at different levels of government.  My municipality does things that I see directly using my tax dollars (garbage collection, snow clearing of roads, recreational services, etc.).  My province does things that affect me a bit less directly (i.e. education, health care, etc.) but I still see the use of my tax dollars.  The federal government is supposed to make sure the whole country runs well, so a lot of their spending will be obvious if I need a program (EI, OAS, etc.) and some is just running a country - not of immediate obvious direct benefit to me, but still of general benefit and needs to be done if the country is to function.  And I will certainly see the downside if they stop doing those things.

I meant in the US.  If you look at voting patterns here, it's very clear that the vast majority of small towns and rural people are Republicans, and those in the cities are dramatically more Democratic.  I think this is one reason why - people in cities see the government services are effective for large #'s of citizens (due to population density), and people in the country don't see that.