Do you agree? It is immoral to be rich.

[K-ice]

I saw this earlier today:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/03/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich


Interesting article.

But if a family "needs" $250K per year to live off of & ideally they can make that from conservative investment returns then they "need" about 6 million.
That would certainly be enough to be very comfortable.
Maybe taxes should take net worth into account as well.
If you make x and are worth y then you should be taxed more.

I do give a small amount of my net worth away every year. I am no where close to 6M, but I would likely be a lot more generous at that point.

What are your thoughts?

[bunchbikes]

I'll respond to a few things:

It’s another to explain why you feel justified in spending your wealth upon houses and sculptures rather than helping some struggling people pay their rent

Spending wealth on houses and sculptures pays the rents of construction workers and sculptors. Every stupid/ludicrous thing that a rich person buys transfers that wealth to the employees of the company who created it.

And the super-rich, the infamous “millionaires and billionaires”, are constantly squandering resources that could be used to create wonderful and humane things

Money is like energy. It can't just disappear by squandering it. It is always transferred to others. (unless you burn it in a dumpster).



I'm not necessarily on either side of the argument, but let me pose some other questions that logically make this a slippery slope, and makes the issue posed by the article less black and white than the author would like it to be:

Is it immoral to take away another's wealth away by force?

Is it immoral to make poor financial decisions, knowing that it will inhibit your ability to help others?

Is it immoral to have kids, knowing that the expense of the childbirth could cure 100 kids of malaria?

Is it immoral to throw food in the trash, when there are people with no food that you could have given it to?

Is it immoral to eat all the food, instead of throwing it in the trash, when you could've eaten less and given the remainder to someone who didn't have any?

Is it immoral to only work 40 hours a week, when you could work 80 hours, in order to earn twice as much and help others?

Is it immoral for someone who is financially poor, but has free-time, to not spend all of that free time time volunteering to help others?

Is it immoral to avoid paying taxes, if the government collecting those taxes is inefficient with it's resources?

"But the central point I want to make here is that the moral duty becomes greater the more wealth you have."

Consider Jesus's parable of The Widow's Offering:

" Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”


The author of the article thinks in terms of absolutes. If you can help 20 people, your moral obligation is greater than someone who can help 1.

Jesus, who I'd argue was a greater teacher of morals than the author (who conveniently avoided personal scrutiny, by posting anonymously),  thinks in terms of percentages. Every person is judged on what they did or didn't do, out of what they had.


Here's one example I like to give on absolutes vs. percentage morality:

Who is more immoral:

Hitler, an extremely hateful person with the desire to murder all jews, who was gifted with legendary leadership and oratory skills, and was able to achieve those desires by leveraging the power and resources of an entire continent.

OR

Joe Skinhead, an extremely hateful person with the desire to murder all jews, who no one took seriously, and had no followers or access to resources to kill jews, despite his best attempts, and was outcast to the outskirts of skinhead society as a joke and a nobody, and therefore was not able to achieve those desires.


I think Jesus would argue they were equally immoral.

[Mezzie]

I think getting involved in politics (lobbying or becoming a politician) to tweak the tax code in such a way that the uber-rich and corporations get ridiculous loopholes to exploit in order to lower their tax rate and/or sheltering money in hidden/off-shore accounts to avoid fair taxation is immoral.

Beyond that, things get less black and white, I think.

[nereo]

What are your thoughts?

These extreme libertarian arguments come up from time to time...
Realizing that your minimum-wage fast food worker in the US has far more wealth and services than roughly half the global population, its a slipper slope defining who is 'rich'.  One could take the argument to mean that it's "immoral" to live in a developed nation when others are citizens - through no choice of their own - of countries like Syria or North Korea.

Personally I believe that how you spend your time and money is what determines the morality. Wealthy individuals can use their assets to promote causes, employ people and enact change in the world.  Or they can use it in an exploding volcano of waste and consumption driving around in a mega-yacht burning 1,000gal of fuel per hour.  Even the latter involves a transfer of wealth (as CargoBiker indicated) - however its far less beneficial than someone spending their wealth to help educate poor girls.

tl/dr: it's not how much you have, it's what you do with it that matters.

[bunchbikes]

I think getting involved in politics (lobbying or becoming a politician) to tweak the tax code in such a way that the uber-rich and corporations get ridiculous loopholes to exploit in order to lower their tax rate and/or sheltering money in hidden/off-shore accounts to avoid fair taxation is immoral.

So it's moral to take something that belongs to another?

If it is moral to take the wealth of another (taxation), then what else is moral to take from someone? What is immoral to take from someone?

And if it's moral for someone to take something of yours, is it immoral to try and hide it?


I could go on.

Not saying I'm for or against income tax... I'm just saying that nothing is ever as black & white as it seems.

[Just Joe]

I think it is immoral to be an employer who refuses to pay their employees well, makes life unnecessarily difficult for the employees and takes a disproportionate amount of the income to live big.

[ncornilsen]

For the premise of the thread: No, absolutely not. One's deeds define their immorality or morality.

[StarBright]

I think it is immoral to be an employer who refuses to pay their employees well, makes life unnecessarily difficult for the employees and takes a disproportionate amount of the income to live big.

^ I think that is good.

Personally, I would find myself immoral if I was rich and wasn't using a large percentage of my wealth to help others but I also find it sort of immoral to hold others to the same expectations I have of myself.

To Tasty Pincones excellent point above - I find exploitation immoral in general (looking at you Waltons/Walmart) so I would have an issue with that. But if someone like the Chobani guy wants to also spend a ton of money on himself, I have no issues with that.

[Prairie Stash]

There is a difference between being rich and consuming large amounts. For example William Buffett, one of the richest men, consumes far less resources than many actors (Tom Cruise for example). If morality is defined by wealth alone then Buffett is less moral. If morality is defined by the consumption of public goods, then Tom Cruise is less moral. I don't think wealth alone is immoral, its the use of the wealth that defines a person.

Being rich is not immoral, money is an inanimate object and in itself is neither good nor evil.

[bunchbikes]

I think it is immoral to be an employer who refuses to pay their employees well, makes life unnecessarily difficult for the employees and takes a disproportionate amount of the income to live big.

What is a moral salary?  What is getting paid well?   Job pay is an agreement between two parties, the employer and the employee.  The employer offers to pay X and the employee either agrees to work for that pay, or they don't. 

What is the function of a business?  Isn't it to make the business owner money?  My objective as a business owner is to pay contractors as little as possible, while getting as high of a quality output.


I can agree that morality comes into how an employer treats employees.

I disagree with it being immoral to take money out of one's business to live large.   That's kind of the point.  If I wanted to live small, I'd get a job.

[bunchbikes]

For the premise of the thread: No, absolutely not. One's deeds define their immorality or morality.

The deed in the article is "choosing not to give away money".

So is choosing not to give away money a deed that makes someone immoral?

[scantee]

I don't think being rich is immoral, but I do think that, in aggregate, excess wealth is a waste of human potential. We're currently in a phase of human history where personal consumer consumption and personal experience consumption are considered the pinnacle of the human experience. I don't agree that they are. Consumption certainly isn't all bad, but there are a lot of much more interesting collaborative endeavors we could be engaging in (space exploration and colonization!!!) that we are foregoing in preference for consumption. Eventually humans will move past our obsession with consumption, we'll likely be forced to once earth becomes too small and less of an enjoyable place to exist. But that is likely many hundreds or thousands of years in the future. For now, I think it is best to focus on making life as pleasant for as many of the world's inhabitants as possible, by providing basic and clean water, food, shelter, adequate employment (people need something to do), and some time for leisure. We're not close to providing all of that yet, for everyone, so we need to focus on doing that first before we move on to the more interesting stuff, which I'll unfortunately not be around to see.

[bunchbikes]

I don't think wealth alone is immoral, its the use of the wealth that defines a person.

The point of the article was that having wealth, by definition, means that you aren't using it to help others. The author argued that not helping other when you have the ability to, is immoral.

So if you have wealth, you have the ability to help others.

Is it immoral if you choose not to?

[bunchbikes]

I also find it sort of immoral to hold others to the same expectations I have of myself.

So you're saying morality is personal then?

To Tasty Pincones excellent point above - I find exploitation immoral in general (looking at you Waltons/Walmart) so I would have an issue with that.

Isn't that you holding others to the same expectations that you have of yourself?

[saijoe]

CargoBiker, I like the way you think.  Thumbs up. 

[bunchbikes]

CargoBiker, I like the way you think.  Thumbs up.

Haha, thanks.

I try to think deeply about both sides of issues, and encourage others to do the same.

I like getting to the core of matters, and discussing well thought out arguments.


I don't like drive-by platitudes and groupthink.

[SwordGuy]

CargoBiker, I like the way you think.  Thumbs up.

Haha, thanks.

I try to think deeply about both sides of issues, and encourage others to do the same.

I like getting to the core of matters, and discussing well thought out arguments.


I don't like drive-by platitudes and groupthink.

Bravo!  On all your points in this thread!

[StarBright]

I also find it sort of immoral to hold others to the same expectations I have of myself.

So you're saying morality is personal then?

To Tasty Pincones excellent point above - I find exploitation immoral in general (looking at you Waltons/Walmart) so I would have an issue with that.

Isn't that you holding others to the same expectations that you have of yourself?

I think there are a lot of shades of gray here and I think there are certainly some hard lines between right and wrong, but yes, at some point morality must be personal.

and to your second question - Why yes, yes it is!  And I thought of that as I was writing it but had decided not to elaborate further. But since you asked :)

As a human being, living in a civilized society I certainly have a baseline expectation of behavior from society in general - for instance I will generally hold people to the expectation that they will not maim, steal, murder, etc. I am pretty comfortable having those expectations of myself and others because it is what allows us to live.  Blatant exploitation of other living things (so animals and the earth are also sort of included in this) fall under the baseline for me.

Once that baseline is met (which, lets be honest, basically falls under the golden rule), I feel wrong holding everyone to my expectations for myself. For example, We try to hit 10+% of charitable giving due to our faith and belief system and hope to do much more than that once we are FI - but I certainly can't expect everyone to adhere to my faith and I certainly don't judge them if they don't. 

[bunchbikes]

Blatant exploitation of other living things (so animals and the earth are also sort of included in this) fall under the baseline for me.

What about Walmart do you consider to be exploitation of others?

[StarBright]

Blatant exploitation of other living things (so animals and the earth are also sort of included in this) fall under the baseline for me.

What about Walmart do you consider to be exploitation of others?

Whoo buddy :) Before I begin - I want to note that plenty of places exploit workers, not just Walmart, but I think that Walmart is so egregious and does it on so many levels that they are the example I used. Also, I know Walmart has been raising wages the last couple of years as well but they still have a business model based on low-wages and little to no benefits offered.

The working conditions of their factories:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/news/companies/walmart-gap-hm-garment-workers-asia/

That they pay (and lobby for the right to pay) such low wages that their workers (even full time workers) are often forced to go on public assistance is fairly well documented. That they then turn around and profit directly from the SNAP program is even more egregious:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/report-walmart-forces-employees-dole-taxpayers
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/04/walmart_employees_on_food_stamps_their_wages_aren_t_enough_to_get_by.html

Additionally, I'm sure you are probably aware of things like wage theft and part-time scheduling to avoid paying for benefits.

Walmart engages in all of these acts and then takes in billions of profits - that is what I find immoral. It's not a secret to them that their pay is so abysmal that their workers need public assistance to survive - it is practically their business plan. They could still turn a profit (obviously a smaller profit) AND pay their lowest level workers a better wage AND also probably provide benefits.

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.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/mar/14/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-walmart-heirs-are-wealthier-bo/

[Prairie Stash]

I don't think wealth alone is immoral, its the use of the wealth that defines a person.

The point of the article was that having wealth, by definition, means that you aren't using it to help others. The author argued that not helping other when you have the ability to, is immoral.

So if you have wealth, you have the ability to help others.

Is it immoral if you choose not to?

Its a fun topic, I'll bite.

In classical terms if I save my harvest in the fall to live on for the winter is that immoral? Should I be like the grasshopper in Aesop's fable and consume as I get food or the Ant that saves for the winter? At what point does helping yourself require you to have wealth for the future? Do present needs outweigh the needs of my family in the winter? I would argue that everyone has the moral imperative to help others after helping themselves survive. If survival requires wealth for tomorrow, there is nothing immoral in that. If your survival today is predicated on my starving in three months, we have a dilemma. You are immoral for requesting of my largesse knowing I'll face doom, I'm immoral for letting you starve. In North America its tough to argue that anyone is starving, its just a classical example of saving for tomorrow.

The article glossed over the idea of saving. Its immoral to save for retirement, children, sickness or other future concerns, I disagree. I think its morally right to remove the burden on others to support you, therefore I think having wealth is proper if its to support your future. In my view the temporal distance from earning and spending is irrelevant, eventually all the money I earn will be used to support myself, some of it will take 50 years and some next week. 

As an aside for discussion, in every distribution of wealth there are two parties, the giver and receiver. Is it morally right to place a burden on others to support you that otherwise was preventable? At that point you are placing your own superiority over others, an epic breach of morality. Not every receiver, like malaria victims, is immoral, more the ones that refuse to help themselves when opportunity presents. I have two homeless persons in my area, one collects recycling for money ($40/day) and the other begs. Both are nice individuals but the second is more of a burden while the first is not. Is either immoral or are they both equally moral? From the vantage of billionaires I suspect I look like a beggar ;)

[Cowardly Toaster]

I dislike the extreme egalitarian thinking that basically says "no one can have anything nice unless everyone has it."

[MrDelane]

I dislike the extreme egalitarian thinking that basically says "no one can have anything nice unless everyone has it."

Not that I agree with the OP, but it seemed to me that the thrust of the article wasn't really "no one can have anything nice unless everyone has it."  Instead I read it more as "no one should have anything nice unless everyone has the basic necessities for survival first."

[Inaya]

I don't think wealth alone is immoral, its the use of the wealth that defines a person.

The point of the article was that having wealth, by definition, means that you aren't using it to help others. The author argued that not helping other when you have the ability to, is immoral.

So if you have wealth, you have the ability to help others.

Is it immoral if you choose not to?

Its a fun topic, I'll bite.

In classical terms if I save my harvest in the fall to live on for the winter is that immoral? Should I be like the grasshopper in Aesop's fable and consume as I get food or the Ant that saves for the winter? At what point does helping yourself require you to have wealth for the future? Do present needs outweigh the needs of my family in the winter? I would argue that everyone has the moral imperative to help others after helping themselves survive. If survival requires wealth for tomorrow, there is nothing immoral in that. If your survival today is predicated on my starving in three months, we have a dilemma. You are immoral for requesting of my largesse knowing I'll face doom, I'm immoral for letting you starve. In North America its tough to argue that anyone is starving, its just a classical example of saving for tomorrow.

In other words, put on your own oxygen mask first.

[bunchbikes]

The working conditions of their factories:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/news/companies/walmart-gap-hm-garment-workers-asia/

Yup, that's shitty.

That they pay (and lobby for the right to pay) such low wages that their workers (even full time workers) are often forced to go on public assistance is fairly well documented. That they then turn around and profit directly from the SNAP program is even more egregious

So Wal-mart is paying a legal wage to people in exchange for hours worked?  Not sure what the moral problem is here.  Sounds like your issue is with the federal government and minimum wage levels.   Unless they pay less than min wage illegally, but neither article mentioned anything like that.

If the legal minimum wage is immoral to pay, then what hourly amount is a moral wage?

Additionally, I'm sure you are probably aware of things like wage theft and part-time scheduling to avoid paying for benefits.

I don't watch the news, so I'm not familiar with either.

Keeping people at part-time pay to avoid paying benefits sounds smart. Does Wal mart have a legal obligation to hire full-time employees? Is it immoral to hire part-time employees?  My wife works at a mom&pop owned daycare and is never scheduled over 38 hours and receives no benefits. Is this immoral?  Or is it only immoral when you're a large company?

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.

Ok, so wealth = 40% of the population is immoral if you exploit workers.  Is this amount of wealth ok if you don't exploit workers?

[bunchbikes]

I dislike the extreme egalitarian thinking that basically says "no one can have anything nice unless everyone has it."

The irony is, many things that are desired are perceived as "nice" precisely because not everyone has it.

[Cwadda]

Following

Kudos to CargoBiker for posting gold on a regular basis

[Prairie Stash]

I don't think wealth alone is immoral, its the use of the wealth that defines a person.

The point of the article was that having wealth, by definition, means that you aren't using it to help others. The author argued that not helping other when you have the ability to, is immoral.

So if you have wealth, you have the ability to help others.

Is it immoral if you choose not to?

Its a fun topic, I'll bite.

In classical terms if I save my harvest in the fall to live on for the winter is that immoral? Should I be like the grasshopper in Aesop's fable and consume as I get food or the Ant that saves for the winter? At what point does helping yourself require you to have wealth for the future? Do present needs outweigh the needs of my family in the winter? I would argue that everyone has the moral imperative to help others after helping themselves survive. If survival requires wealth for tomorrow, there is nothing immoral in that. If your survival today is predicated on my starving in three months, we have a dilemma. You are immoral for requesting of my largesse knowing I'll face doom, I'm immoral for letting you starve. In North America its tough to argue that anyone is starving, its just a classical example of saving for tomorrow.

In other words, put on your own oxygen mask first.

I don't think wealth alone is immoral, its the use of the wealth that defines a person.

The point of the article was that having wealth, by definition, means that you aren't using it to help others. The author argued that not helping other when you have the ability to, is immoral.

So if you have wealth, you have the ability to help others.

Is it immoral if you choose not to?

Its a fun topic, I'll bite.

In classical terms if I save my harvest in the fall to live on for the winter is that immoral? Should I be like the grasshopper in Aesop's fable and consume as I get food or the Ant that saves for the winter? At what point does helping yourself require you to have wealth for the future? Do present needs outweigh the needs of my family in the winter? I would argue that everyone has the moral imperative to help others after helping themselves survive. If survival requires wealth for tomorrow, there is nothing immoral in that. If your survival today is predicated on my starving in three months, we have a dilemma. You are immoral for requesting of my largesse knowing I'll face doom, I'm immoral for letting you starve. In North America its tough to argue that anyone is starving, its just a classical example of saving for tomorrow.

In other words, put on your own oxygen mask first.

Exactly what I was thinking as I wrote this.

 "The point of the article was that having wealth, by definition, means that you aren't using it to help others" - cargobiker
However, if I use wealth to alleviate the need for others to help me, is that still immoral? Isn't it better when people help themselves so you don't have to? I'm not disputing your claim of the articles statement, I agree with your paraphrasing.

The article did a poor job proving the argument about proving having wealth is immoral; they highlighted spending it on islands is immoral but equated that with simply having wealth. Having and spending money are entirely different. I think we can all see the distinction between spending and saving; except the author. I may have a million in the bank but live off $30,000/year whereas my neighbor spends $60,000 and has nothing saved. Am I immoral for my lifestyle and he can claim moral superiority? But if I consider my occupation to be investing then is it morally okay to live off my skill?

What the author is really finding immoral is people spending large amounts; simply having wealth is meaningless.

[Glenstache]

The question asked in the title and the question debated here (ate least somewhat) are not the same thing. A few general statements:
1. Being legal and being moral are not the same thing. Laws that enforce morality beyond not doing harm are generally not so great (YMMV, but I'll probably disagree with you).
2. Capitalism is an economic model, not a moral model. Seeking to perfect capitalistic goals is not comparable to a moral endpoint. Square peg meet avocado.

The question is if we, as individuals in a society, have a moral obligation to help others in a society. Whether you are "rich" or not is a crude way of asking if you have resources available to help, break even, or be helped.

Also, to go back to one of Cargo Bikers points, actually money can be squandered. Currency theory and most modern economists would say so. Most money spent on war is a squandering. Money stuffed in the mattress is a squandering. It is a trivial concept that different uses of money have different impacts on society as a whole, so pointing out that money spent on bazillion dollar handbags provides jobs isn't really useful in either direction.

This issues has been hashed out for centuries in political philosophy. Yes, we have an obligation to help others, but that obligation exists with limits. So, no it is not inherently immoral to be rich. Yes, it is immoral to use the inherent power that comes with being rich to purposefully disadvantage others. Yes, there is a ton of gray area in there where reasonable, moral people will disagree.

[StarBright]

The working conditions of their factories:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/news/companies/walmart-gap-hm-garment-workers-asia/

Yup, that's shitty.

That they pay (and lobby for the right to pay) such low wages that their workers (even full time workers) are often forced to go on public assistance is fairly well documented. That they then turn around and profit directly from the SNAP program is even more egregious

So Wal-mart is paying a legal wage to people in exchange for hours worked?  Not sure what the moral problem is here.  Sounds like your issue is with the federal government and minimum wage levels.   Unless they pay less than min wage illegally, but neither article mentioned anything like that.

If the legal minimum wage is immoral to pay, then what hourly amount is a moral wage?

Why not both? I can have an issue with Fed Minimum Wage levels and think that Walmart is immoral for not paying above minimum wages when they can afford it. I previously mentioned gray areas- just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral. Since morality is partly personal I'll say that I think a moral wage is one that allows people to be able to sustain themselves at approximately the same level state benefits would pay if that person is working 40 hours a week. A walmart employee can work 40 plus hours a week and still only make 15k a year.

Additionally, I'm sure you are probably aware of things like wage theft and part-time scheduling to avoid paying for benefits.

I don't watch the news, so I'm not familiar with either.

Keeping people at part-time pay to avoid paying benefits sounds smart. Does Wal mart have a legal obligation to hire full-time employees? Is it immoral to hire part-time employees? 

Wage theft can be two things: generally requiring workers to show up for work that doesn't count as their hourly time. So a person paid 40 hours a week may also be "asked" to show up 30 minutes early and stay 30 minutes late every day, or "asked" to work through their breaks to set up, clean up, etc. It is also commonly labeling people as "assistant managers" which disqualifies them for overtime and then having them work the equivalent of hourly jobs with lots of overtime for no extra pay. Walmart has lost several lawsuits for this.

Also- you again are conflating legal and moral. There is no legal obligation to hire people full time - but it is certainly morally gray to hire "assistant managers" to stock shelves for 60 hours a week while also hiring hourly people for 20-30 hours a week. They clearly need two full time people but have arranged it to pay the least amount with the fewest benefits.

https://thinkprogress.org/workers-sue-walmart-for-manipulating-employee-classification-to-deny-them-overtime-pay-2e0c757efb0c

My wife works at a mom&pop owned daycare and is never scheduled over 38 hours and receives no benefits. Is this immoral?  Or is it only immoral when you're a large company?

I do think small mom and pop shops should be covered under different rules (and currently are - I work for a small company that isn't covered by FMLA and boy can it SUCK!) But again - legal and moral are two different things. If mom and pop daycare owner can easily afford to pay for benefits but instead decide they want to buy a second vacation house and a tesla while their employee can't afford health care, then I don't think that is moral (also I know daycare is not a high profit industry - just using your example).

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.

Ok, so wealth = 40% of the population is immoral if you exploit workers.  Is this amount of wealth ok if you don't exploit workers?

Yeah, like I said earlier - if you don't exploit your workers, the planet, your city's resources etc I 'm not going to call someone immoral for spending on themselves. Would it be nice if they gave?  Sure! But if they aren't actively harming people in pursuit of profit then I don't really care.

This is a fun thead - thanks for starting!

[SwordGuy]

Well, I'm rich.

Let's categorize the immoral things I've done to get that way.

I was born to middle class parents.

I not only attended school, I actually paid attention and did my homework.

Not only that, but I enjoyed learning, so I even learned things on my own.   The horror!

As a child in junior and senior high school, I exploited adults who lived nearby by starting my own yard business and charging them money to mow their yard.   

Not only that, but I had a second job working at McDonalds at minimum wage, too.   I mean, once you start exploiting adults, it's time to start exploiting major corporations, too.

I lived at home while in college, exploiting my parents who provided bed and board, and further exploiting McDonalds for more money to use for tuition and books.   I compounded my crimes against humanity by not spending my hard-earned funds on all the books my professor's assigned me, thus depriving some authors and publishers of additional income.   (Having taken the time to learn much of the material whilst in 4th thru 12th grade simply by paying attention in school or reading library books on my own, I could coast along on the basics.)

After I graduated from college I moved in with the woman I married shortly thereafter.  I did so poorly as a salesperson that my employer, a small businessman, was unable to keep up with his expenses and his cocaine and alcohol addictions.    He went out of business and we went on to finish the software we had sold, living on 1/3 median family income (while paying child support) for that privilege.   

Those years of poverty trained us not to waste much money on things we couldn't afford.  And we had the effrontery, after we reached median family income, not to spend our money on vacations to Disneyland or cruise ships, or expensive cars, or grossly expensive McMansions.    Yes, I confess, we actually saved our money instead of consuming every dollar we made, and more.    Our failure to succumb to the norm of consumer excess is simply inexcusable.  Instead of saving so we would not be a burden on society, and to minimize the burden our mentally handicapped daughter would place on society, we should have squandered all our earnings on consumer ephemeral items for the betterment of everyone else.   Well, ignoring the pollution aspect of all that unnecessary production and the disposal of the waste, that is.   

Not only did we save once, we saved for decades.  Decades!   How dare we??!!   

And not once did anyone else say, "Gosh, SwordGuy, we noticed that you and the missus and children aren't going on cruise ships, or staying in 5 star hotels, or eating out in restaurants every night.  Here, take from our bounty and just wallow in luxury at our expense!"

And when we set out to set up our rental property business to help provide for our mentally handicapped daughter after we're gone, while we were being inundated with squirrel droppings, or termite and cockroach poo, or crawling under houses to check for mold, or doing grounds maintenance in 80% humidity on 90+ degree days, or paying honest tradesmen to ply their trade by repairing the electrical, HVAC, plumbing or roofing subsystems, we noticed that no one pried themselves away from their TV to come out and help unless they were being paid for it.  Funny about that. 

And then, not only did we pay our bills, we helped people who needed help.  We invented work for good people we knew needed help and paid them what we could afford.  We should have yanked money out of our savings and just handed it to them, all that they wanted, so their standard of living wouldn't even a tiny bit of contraction.

So, that's the catalog of the crimes that made us rich.   

The shame of it all.

[Paul der Krake]

Wal-Mart pays significantly above minimum wage. The absolute lowest for any associate is $9/hr, and most make more, with full-time employees being at around $13/hour.

[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.

[dividendman]

It's immoral if you're a christian. I think my boy JC said something like " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

[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.

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.

[MandalayVA]

It's immoral if you're a christian. I think my boy JC said something like " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Tell that to Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson, the Graham family, etc., etc., etc.

[Mezzie]

I think getting involved in politics (lobbying or becoming a politician) to tweak the tax code in such a way that the uber-rich and corporations get ridiculous loopholes to exploit in order to lower their tax rate and/or sheltering money in hidden/off-shore accounts to avoid fair taxation is immoral.

So it's moral to take something that belongs to another?

If it is moral to take the wealth of another (taxation), then what else is moral to take from someone? What is immoral to take from someone?

And if it's moral for someone to take something of yours, is it immoral to try and hide it?


I could go on.

Not saying I'm for or against income tax... I'm just saying that nothing is ever as black & white as it seems.

1. Yes, I think taxes are moral when they are used for things that benfit society (schools, infrastructure, health care, etc.). The false equivalency of "taking something that belongs to another" and "taxes" is just that: false equivalency. To be a part of society, there has to be some sharing. Since we're not all altruists, that sharing comes in the form of taxes. Tax money is not mine; it's the government's/everyone's from the get-go, and shirking that societal responsibility by hiding the people's money while stull benefitting from what it provides (educated workers, roads to get to work, defense, police, etc.) is immoral.

2. Slippery slope arguments are just silly. I'm not going to respond to the rest.

[bunchbikes]

1. Being legal and being moral are not the same thing. Laws that enforce morality beyond not doing harm are generally not so great (YMMV, but I'll probably disagree with you).

You're 100% right, I was starting to fall into that trap.

The question is if we, as individuals in a society, have a moral obligation to help others in a society.

Yeah, this is what it boils down to.   

Do you think individuals in a society have a moral obligation to help others in a society?

[bunchbikes]

I'll say that I think a moral wage is one that allows people to be able to sustain themselves at approximately the same level state benefits would pay if that person is working 40 hours a week.

I understand the logic of your definition.  So Wal-mart is morally obligated to pay different wages, depending on states and cost-of-living.

Wage theft can be two things: generally requiring workers to show up for work that doesn't count as their hourly time. So a person paid 40 hours a week may also be "asked" to show up 30 minutes early and stay 30 minutes late every day, or "asked" to work through their breaks to set up, clean up, etc.

I agree on this. Immoral because wal mart is breaking the agreement with the employee (hiring contract).

It is also commonly labeling people as "assistant managers" which disqualifies them for overtime and then having them work the equivalent of hourly jobs with lots of overtime for no extra pay.

So, like, they go on salary pay?  When I was teach I got asked to work overtime all the time with no extra pay, but it was in the salary.  It sounds like the work arrangement for assistant managers is fine, you'd just like the salary pay to be a higher rate? Or do you think there is a moral limit on the number of hours a week that can be worked?

If mom and pop daycare owner can easily afford to pay for benefits but instead decide they want to buy a second vacation house and a tesla while their employee can't afford health care, then I don't think that is moral

What if health care was cheap and affordable (or free) for everyone?  Would it be immoral to hire part time employees with no benefits then?   I guess the question I'm getting at is: Is there a moral obligation for a company to "make up" for the failure of the federal government and medical-industrial complex to keep healthcare affordable?

But if they aren't actively harming people in pursuit of profit then I don't really care.

So immoral = actively harming people.  What about inactively allowing people to be harmed, by the inaction to help, when one had the ability to?

[davisgang90]

It's immoral if you're a christian. I think my boy JC said something like " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Yeah, it's Mark 10:24-25 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

That's not where it ends though...

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

So...context.

[bunchbikes]

Instead of saving so we would not be a burden on society, and to minimize the burden our mentally handicapped daughter would place on society

So the "oxygen mask" opinion like above.

Is it immoral to keep more wealth than what is minimally required to prevent your family from being a burden on society?

Having wealth in addition to what is minimally required to live, doesn't help society out anymore than having the minimum does.

I paid $65 for my daughter to have swim lessons this week.  Her having swim lessons does not reduce her burden on society. She would be just as much of a non-burden without the swim lessons. Was that an immoral expenditure, because that $65 could have cured someone's malaria?

[Dicey]

Instead of saving so we would not be a burden on society, and to minimize the burden our mentally handicapped daughter would place on society

So the "oxygen mask" opinion like above.

Is it immoral to keep more wealth than what is minimally required to prevent your family from being a burden on society?

Having wealth in addition to what is minimally required to live, doesn't help society out anymore than having the minimum does.

I paid $65 for my daughter to have swim lessons this week.  Her having swim lessons does not reduce her burden on society. She would be just as much of a non-burden without the swim lessons. Was that an immoral expenditure, because that $65 could have cured someone's malaria?

If the expenditure saves your daughter from drowning, maybe she will grow up to find a cure for malaria.

And "wealth in addition to what is minimally required to live" builds infrastructure, such as hospitals.

[Inaya]

I think getting involved in politics (lobbying or becoming a politician) to tweak the tax code in such a way that the uber-rich and corporations get ridiculous loopholes to exploit in order to lower their tax rate and/or sheltering money in hidden/off-shore accounts to avoid fair taxation is immoral.

So it's moral to take something that belongs to another?

If it is moral to take the wealth of another (taxation), then what else is moral to take from someone? What is immoral to take from someone?

And if it's moral for someone to take something of yours, is it immoral to try and hide it?


I could go on.

Not saying I'm for or against income tax... I'm just saying that nothing is ever as black & white as it seems.

1. Yes, I think taxes are moral when they are used for things that benfit society (schools, infrastructure, health care, etc.). The false equivalency of "taking something that belongs to another" and "taxes" is just that: false equivalency. To be a part of society, there has to be some sharing. Since we're not all altruists, that sharing comes in the form of taxes. Tax money is not mine; it's the government's/everyone's from the get-go, and shirking that societal responsibility by hiding the people's money while stull benefitting from what it provides (educated workers, roads to get to work, defense, police, etc.) is immoral.

So would you consider it immoral to use tax shelters, deductions, etc. to reduce tax burden?

[davisgang90]

One of the challenges with the article's line of thinking is defining what "rich" means.  Those of us on this board are for the most part ridiculously better off than most of the world by any measure.

So is the family living on $30,000 a year in the US immoral since they make incredibly more money and enjoy so many luxuries compared to a family in Ethiopia living on $360 a year?

[shenlong55]

I think getting involved in politics (lobbying or becoming a politician) to tweak the tax code in such a way that the uber-rich and corporations get ridiculous loopholes to exploit in order to lower their tax rate and/or sheltering money in hidden/off-shore accounts to avoid fair taxation is immoral.

So it's moral to take something that belongs to another?

If it is moral to take the wealth of another (taxation), then what else is moral to take from someone? What is immoral to take from someone?

And if it's moral for someone to take something of yours, is it immoral to try and hide it?


I could go on.

Not saying I'm for or against income tax... I'm just saying that nothing is ever as black & white as it seems.

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?

[Glenstache]

The question is if we, as individuals in a society, have a moral obligation to help others in a society.

Yeah, this is what it boils down to.   

Do you think individuals in a society have a moral obligation to help others in a society?

TL/DR: Yes

Long version:
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. 

The context of this thread is morality. Morality by definition is a set of rules saying if a particular action is right or wrong. I think that casting issue of helping others in a society in terms of right and wrong is the improper metric. It invites all of the arguments that we see in this thread invoking Christian values, invoking the absolutism of the libertarian version of individual liberty (it isn't the only definition), and all of the endmembers of economic and political systems. ALL of those positions are easily shown to be not applicable, and the whole argument goes nowhere.

I would cast it simply as, "What kind of society do we want to live in?" What are the desired outcomes we would like to have?

As a first principle, I would argue that it is absolutely impossible to live in a society and not have to compromise. No political, economic, or religious system is absolute in practice... and where people have tried the results have been predictably disastrous at the individual and social levels.

Let's look at the endmembers:
1.) Every person for themselves. This would lead to a strongly stratified society. Economic power is self perpetuating and it would become calcified. This would be good for some individuals, but would be bad for many others.
2.) Enforced equalization of income. This would be bad for everyone because it would quash rewards for hard work. If we actually had infinite resources, this could possibly work, but the scenario of infinite resource is a fiction.

Let's not argue those anymore.

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.

[bunchbikes]

1. The false equivalency of "taking something that belongs to another" and "taxes" is just that: false equivalency.

I don't think it's a false equivalency.

Do you think Eminent Domain is "taking something that belongs to another"?  Or does my house belong to the government from the get-go, because they want to build a highway?

To be a part of society, there has to be some sharing. Since we're not all altruists, that sharing comes in the form of taxes.

Not from 1776 to 1912 it didn't.

Tax money is not mine; it's the government's/everyone's from the get-go, and shirking that societal responsibility by hiding the people's money while stull benefitting from what it provides (educated workers, roads to get to work, defense, police, etc.) is immoral.

And if i think the government doesn't use all of my tax dollars for things that benefit society?  What if I only hide the percentage of money that I think will be squandered, and allow tax to be taken for that which I think is necessary?  Obviously, I'll be fined and/or arrested, because I'd be breaking the law.. But would it be moral or immoral to do that?

2. Slippery slope arguments are just silly. I'm not going to respond to the rest.

Having a consistent response to relevant slippery slope questions, ensures that one's responses are derived from logic.

[bunchbikes]

If the expenditure saves your daughter from drowning, maybe she will grow up to find a cure for malaria.

And "wealth in addition to what is minimally required to live" builds infrastructure, such as hospitals.

You know, I think the Butterfly Effect that you brought up starts to unravel the argument of the author. It's impossible to see all the future implications of decisions, or the opportunity costs of not making certain decisions.

And  yes, good point!  If your wealth is kept in a bank/investment, that money is being used for real estate construction loans, etc.  You can be indirectly assisting the construction of infrastructure and hospitals, whether you want to help others or not.

[bunchbikes]

So would you consider it immoral to use tax shelters, deductions, etc. to reduce tax burden?

As we've already concluded in this thread, legal does not equal moral.

So I'm curious to hear the response to this question as well.

[bunchbikes]

One of the challenges with the article's line of thinking is defining what "rich" means.  Those of us on this board are for the most part ridiculously better off than most of the world by any measure.

So is the family living on $30,000 a year in the US immoral since they make incredibly more money and enjoy so many luxuries compared to a family in Ethiopia living on $360 a year?

This was the author's problem.

He started off strong, but the argument got weak when trying to determine who is wealthy and who is not.  He ended up at $250,000 for an income exemption, which conveniently alleviates himself (probably), and 99% of the population from any social responsibility.

I think a better definition would have been "any spending on things that are not necessary to live" is immoral.  That could apply to people across the board.  Air conditioning? immoral.  Ditch the A/C and contribute all electricity savings to Africa to cure Malaria. TV?  immoral.   etc.  More bedrooms in a house than you can fit people in?  immoral.

But then, you could debate about what is necessary. However, I think that's an easier debate than "who is wealthy and who isn't"?


This is a fact: Spending money is a choice. And spending money on a luxury purchase is money that could have money sent to Africa. This is true for the wealthy or poor.  But is spending money on luxury purchases immoral?