Morally speaking, not legally, what gives you the right to other people's earnings?

[jshm2]

There is nothing thought provoking about it.

If you share nothing, then it's plausible they take everything. It's simple dynamics.

Taxation, non-profits, charities etc are how we utilise official channels to make positive community changes. Not only via votes but also via our money, effort and support.

If you do nothing of these, then you'll be targeted (officially or unofficially is another matter entirely) and will find you not only lose business, but favour and acceptance too.

[Aguysopinion4799]

well, it depends if you mean that as a permanent thing where they have to give all their earnings or always give their earnings to you for their whole life or if it is a one time thing.

Since I am trying to avoid the legal route and stick to moral code here, I will just say, when someone has hurt another person and it requires money to be treated, it would be appreciated to cover for the treatment as the apology.

I guess explaining moral code is basically just, if someone equivalent exchange? so in a situation where one individual is currently suffering more than the other and it is or is not due to yourself, it would be an act of kindness to be the one to reduce that suffering of the other individual.



Ehehe... the reason I didn't include legally is because the first thing that came to mind was marriage and how that often results in a bad situation because of the legal system in that part of the marriage XD

[UCrayCray]

You live in a society that has provided you the opportunity to get yourself educated and the opportunity to find a job that you can support yourself with. Surely you have a responsibility to contribute back to the very society that fostered that path for you in the first place.

[Agape93]

Not a damn thing. Nobody is entitled to what I make unless I deem them entitled to it. Hence why taxation is theft.

[Frank_Woods]

I think it's also good to have taxes for the commons, but definitely taxes should only go to services that everyone can unanimously agree on. For instance, I don't think people disagree on using tax payers money for infrastructure projects like fixing roads. I am opposed to using tax funds on debatable expenses such as abortions. I like the idea of progressive marginal tax brackets. But I don't think people understand that taxing higher brackets isn't necessarily taxing the rich. Not all high income earners are rich. In fact doctors make a lot but are in huge debt a lot of the times. It's dumb to penalize their hard work in schooling with high income taxes. If you really want to tax the rich fairly, you need to increase taxes on luxury goods the rich tend to buy. Sales tax on luxury consumption makes more sense than taxing income.

[Anonymous]

If I contribute (either directly or indirectly) to the means and manner which make it possible for them to earn their money, I am entitled to a sliver (however small) of its dividend.

That's the basic argument behind taxation and funding the means of society.

For example, if I'm a teacher, I am contributing (in part) to the creation of Doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc.. all through a well funded education system. If you are able to make your living because of the existence of engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc... then you should be forced to pay back into the system which allows you to earn the living you do. And if it turns out I draw my salary from a government funded program, (state-run schools for example) then that makes sense.

[Citizenkirk]

You justmy with that steaming load of I can assure you, I am not living off your

[slatyb]

No man is an island. Do you imagine that a complex economy is sustainable without government? Social insurance is nothing new. People in tribes looked after the weaker members. Selfish people who refused to support others were cast out. Today we do the same by paying taxes to provide services for the less fortunate.

[ReynardTheFox6251315]

Part of the question is how does someone earn $100 million or a $1 billion? What does it mean? Did they produce all the good or do all of the work? No of course they didn't do all the work they had other people do it for them and they reap the rewards while paying almost nothing in taxes. If the employees were fairly compensated for the money they earned for these corporations we wouldn't have billionaires. Taxes are the last chance to redistribute unearned wealth.

[exitseven]

The right that is given to them under the Constitution. Democrats have both houses and the White House. They can ram anything through that they want no matter hoe much debt they run up and how much damage they do to the country.
It will probably take 20 years to fix all the damage they will do during the next two years.

[Abtraction]

As a high income person, why should I pay more taxes than any other tax payer? I don't use more of the state or government services than anyone else. Actually I probably use less. I even pay way more into Social Security.

I earn more because I worked for it, not anyone else.

Taxes should be a set amount based on population and needs of government. (Small government)

[JohnO45]

I'd argue that the amount you earn is a arbitrary number that has been chosen for you by your boss. Your boss will give you the least amount of money for the most amount of work and will use their position of power to keep a bigger cut of the profits for themselves. To mitigate this problem governments should create systems that can lessen this imbalance of profit distribution.

[DCooper]

No such right exists. Rights are things you cannot be prohibited from doing; not goods and services.

[JustJen]

Nothing gives anyone the right to anyone else’s earnings. It’s theft, pure and simple. Totally immoral.

[Anonymous]

Certanly not having a child together. Forced childsupport is theft.

[Ilickvulvas]

Not one fucking thing but then again I’m a sane conservative

[Feelicks]

The threat of violence? Works for the government.

[Snakeyes7]

You don't end of story.

[Waldoe]

I am not entitled to Anything!!!