Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Much is Fair?

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 8:13:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's say you stop at a local gas station/ quick mart on the way home from work one day and you are picking up a gallon of milk.

The price of the milk is $4.00

While standing in line, you look around and see (as bizarre as it seems) Bill Gates or some other multimillionaire that you recognize standing in line behind you. The multimillionaire is also holding a gallon of milk, same as you.

My question is: "With fairness in mind,.... how much should the multimillionaire be expected to pay for HIS gallon of milk?"
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:17:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

F-16 assuming you are not just being facetious... what is your logical justification for your stated position above?

Why should a person pay more for the same product than everyone else does.... just because they have more to spend?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:29:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
$4 same milk same price.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:31:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
- I think he is being facetious. $300 for milk LOL

- the point of being rich is to exercise pride (self-superiority, vanity) and greed (selfishness).

- niether person should pay anything for the milk. Instead of worshipping those with sleek, expensive automobiles, we should work to change our culture as to respect self-control and fortitude. Instead of licking the boots of those with material wealth, we should praise those who are able to consume little and produce much. Production of items that are actually useful would help as well.
Rob
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:42:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:31:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
- I think he is being facetious. $300 for milk LOL

- the point of being rich is to exercise pride (self-superiority, vanity) and greed (selfishness).

- niether person should pay anything for the milk. Instead of worshipping those with sleek, expensive automobiles, we should work to change our culture as to respect self-control and fortitude. Instead of licking the boots of those with material wealth, we should praise those who are able to consume little and produce much. Production of items that are actually useful would help as well.

This is a good enough lead in to the point that I was hoping to make my starting this thread, Lasagna.

If the person making huge amounts more in money is generally expected to pay exactly the same for a gallon of milk that you or I do,.... Why then is his tax burden based progressively upon his her income?

Why or how is a "percentage" of income a more fair means of taxation,... than say a fixed sum (like the gallon of milk) is.

A millionaire is just another person like anyone else is. WHY should their tax burden to run the country be more than the tax burden is for those who make much less?

What is the justification for a progressive scale in taxation?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 9:55:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

You have $299,700 left which is good. By the way, I was just kidding about the % of income thing.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 10:03:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:55:55 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

You have $299,700 left which is good. By the way, I was just kidding about the % of income thing.

So you were kidding about all of it?

Economic law says that there is one price of the milk which is based on supply and demand, and it doesn't give a damn about what we think is the fair price. If you try to set rules for what people must pay based on something other than the price, you will destroy the market. For instance, the percentage model will just eliminate all differences in income and make personal income irrelevant. Everyone will immediately stop producing and will systematically shoot for easier, lower paying jobs because there is no disadvantages. People who perform more valuable services will cease to be rewarded. The whole social and economic order will break down and society will collapse.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:12:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 10:03:29 PM, Grape wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:55:55 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

You have $299,700 left which is good. By the way, I was just kidding about the % of income thing.

So you were kidding about all of it?

Economic law says that there is one price of the milk which is based on supply and demand, and it doesn't give a damn about what we think is the fair price. If you try to set rules for what people must pay based on something other than the price, you will destroy the market. For instance, the percentage model will just eliminate all differences in income and make personal income irrelevant. Everyone will immediately stop producing and will systematically shoot for easier, lower paying jobs because there is no disadvantages. People who perform more valuable services will cease to be rewarded. The whole social and economic order will break down and society will collapse.

Yes. What I would have said if I was being serious.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:39:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:42:44 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Why or how is a "percentage" of income a more fair means of taxation,... than say a fixed sum (like the gallon of milk) is.

This is kind of a silly question. If it was a fixed amount, not everyone would be able to pay it.. If it was so low that everyone could pay it, what would the income the federal government gets from the tax be good for?

They'd have to figure out other ways to get money, that's for sure.

If people think that the corporate hand weighs heavy on the government now, imagine how much more influence these groups would have if the government relied even more heavily on their donations.

When it comes to the government, there are two ways that big business seems to want to deal with it... Either they want to abolish the government so that it can get out of their way, or they want the government to give them special privileges.

Come to think of it, that isn't really much different than how individuals tend to be.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:47:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

What would prevent rich people hiring the poor to buy them cheap milk? Heck a Rich person could probably hire expert accountants to hide so much money the store would have to give them milk. How such a system even work, lets keep it all the same price.

Maybe we should be permitted to spit on rich shoppers, that would be fair.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 6:09:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

In a fair world there would be no getting rich.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 6:20:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 6:09:35 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

In a fair world there would be no getting rich.

In a fair world, everyone would be getting rich.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 8:05:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 2:39:22 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:42:44 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Why or how is a "percentage" of income a more fair means of taxation,... than say a fixed sum (like the gallon of milk) is.


This is kind of a silly question. If it was a fixed amount, not everyone would be able to pay it.. If it was so low that everyone could pay it, what would the income the federal government gets from the tax be good for?

They'd have to figure out other ways to get money, that's for sure.

If people think that the corporate hand weighs heavy on the government now, imagine how much more influence these groups would have if the government relied even more heavily on their donations.

When it comes to the government, there are two ways that big business seems to want to deal with it... Either they want to abolish the government so that it can get out of their way, or they want the government to give them special privileges.

Come to think of it, that isn't really much different than how individuals tend to be.

So, Cosmic.... are you suggesting that the governments NEEDS justify the means?

That's kind of a scary thought.

My thinking is that every citizens tax burden ideally should be exactly the same. Of course, there are those who have no money at all and they will not be able to pay their "fair share."

Beyond that, the government would be "justified" (in my opinion) to tax "consumption" and to place tariffs on imports and exports.

If that means the government would have to be reduced in its size and powers?

GOOD!
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 8:12:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 6:20:57 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/23/2011 6:09:35 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

In a fair world there would be no getting rich.

In a fair world, everyone would be getting rich.

As a socialist, I agree with that.

By the way, the OP's question could have been: "What should the fine be if you stole the gallon of milk and what should the fine be if Bill Gates stole the gallon of milk?"
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:08:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 8:05:49 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:39:22 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:42:44 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Why or how is a "percentage" of income a more fair means of taxation,... than say a fixed sum (like the gallon of milk) is.


This is kind of a silly question. If it was a fixed amount, not everyone would be able to pay it.. If it was so low that everyone could pay it, what would the income the federal government gets from the tax be good for?

They'd have to figure out other ways to get money, that's for sure.

If people think that the corporate hand weighs heavy on the government now, imagine how much more influence these groups would have if the government relied even more heavily on their donations.

When it comes to the government, there are two ways that big business seems to want to deal with it... Either they want to abolish the government so that it can get out of their way, or they want the government to give them special privileges.

Come to think of it, that isn't really much different than how individuals tend to be.

So, Cosmic.... are you suggesting that the governments NEEDS justify the means?

That's kind of a scary thought.


To them, it does. IF you want to know what really justifies it, it is the people who continue to comply with the government. The government's ability to execute the tax is what really justifies it.

This may be an even scarier thought.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:19:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 6:20:57 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/23/2011 6:09:35 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

In a fair world there would be no getting rich.

In a fair world, everyone would be getting rich.

Which is my exact point. If everyone was at the same standard there would be no classification of "rich" as everyone would have a similar amount of income.

So, in a fair world, there would be no getting "rich".
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 3:24:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 2:19:17 PM, Tiel wrote:

If everyone was at the same standard there would be no classification of "rich" as everyone would have a similar amount of income.

So, in a fair world, there would be no getting "rich".

Please share your definition or interpretation of what that "standard" would be and how it would be achieved.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 3:03:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My question is: "With fairness in mind,.... how much should the multimillionaire be expected to pay for HIS gallon of milk?":

The same as everyone else.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 3:08:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.:

I hope this is a joke.

So you need to bring in your W-2 and your bank statements down to the corner store every time you purchase an item? First of all, that's insanely impractical, secondly fraud would be rampant to get a lower premium on milk, and thirdly, that's not "fair."

Fairness would be everyone paying the same price without prejudice. Your sense of "fairness" entails penalizing people for success.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 3:49:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

Reminds me of the leveling system in Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. As you leveled up, the monsters leveled with you, so there was pretty much no point.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 3:54:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 2:19:17 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 6:20:57 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/23/2011 6:09:35 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:16:52 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 9/22/2011 9:11:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:19:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:17:09 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
$4. It's the same milk.

I agree, and I feel that is only fair.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.

I think prices shouldn't be set as absolute numbers but rather a percentage of a person's monthly income. For instance, say milk should be 0.1%. So if you are earning $3000 a month, you should pay $3 for it. If you earn $300,000 a month, then you should pay $300 for it. That is the only fair way to determine the price.

But then whats the point of getting rich?

In a fair world there would be no getting rich.

In a fair world, everyone would be getting rich.

Which is my exact point. If everyone was at the same standard there would be no classification of "rich" as everyone would have a similar amount of income.

You assume that fairness requires that everyone is equal. A fair game does not mean that neither team wins or loses, but that neither team may cheat to win. Everyone would also be getting rich relative to their past selves, as under capitalism the market grows and becomes more efficient. We are all much richer than we were fifty years ago, after all.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 8:14:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 2:19:17 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 6:20:57 AM, mongeese wrote:
In a fair world, everyone would be getting rich.

Which is my exact point. If everyone was at the same standard there would be no classification of "rich" as everyone would have a similar amount of income.

So, in a fair world, there would be no getting "rich".

Meh. Everyone being poor is not preferable to our current system. Capitalism works just fine, and I don't see any need to replace it.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 10:46:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ask the guy who is selling the milk... its pretty much up to him...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:35:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 10:46:39 PM, belle wrote:
ask the guy who is selling the milk... its pretty much up to him...

I agree.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 4:28:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Depends on your logic and reason. Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%