I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
Latest Popular Most Bookmarked Most Emailed Top Rated My Favorites Random Chat
All Games Funny Entertainment Quizzes Weird Tech Lifestyle, Arts & Lit. News & Politics Science Sports Misc
T-Shirts   Submit Content  

Churches Get $83 BILLION In Tax Avoidance [Pic+]

Should they?

submitted by: HolyGod
< Back Next >
Churches Get $83 BILLION In Tax Avoidance [Pic+]. Should they?
+ Add to Favs
Hits: 5035 | Favorites: 1 | Emailed: 0 | Rating: 2.8 | Category: News & Politics | Date: 08/26/2013
 popular today
It`s Everywhere You Want To Be [Pic] ... But it`s the ONLY place he wants to be.
Photoshop ALL The Things! - Before & After [Pix] *Please note Photoshop is not a valid substitution for reality. Results WILL vary.
22 Of History`s Greatest Burns [Pix] *Shots Fired*... History just keepin` it classy.
Just Two Grown Men Having A Tea Party [Pic] Nothing creepy about that at all.
Kiss Me You Fool! [Pic] Who are you callin` a fool you butt lipped baboon face?!
More Comments >

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:12:59 AM

That doesn't make people better off.

The difference being that your scenario relies on involuntary/forced exchanges where mine allows voluntary exchanges only.

Voluntary exchanges ONLY happen because both parties perceive that they are getting the better deal. This perception would keep wealth fairly well dispersed.

Judicial systems are there to protect individuals from coercion.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:09:04 AM

I find it amoral to have a 100 foot yacht when children are starving to death.

Me too. However, let's not kid ourselves and imply that we are saints. We are both better off than most people in this country.

Do you not find it immoral to have a 4k sq. ft. home with a $600 electricity bill while kids are starving? My point here is that the "100 ft yacht" is an arbitrary point of wealth you`ve decided on. The same principles you`re using would also suggest that the size of your house is immoral.

[quote]Is that an accurate assessment?[/quote]
I don`t see it as grades of immorality. An action is either moral or immoral. My forcibly taking of another`s property is immoral, so I cannot advocate it.

Buying a 100-ft yacht is immoral so I will not do it. I have no reason to believe that I have the authority to tell others how to live their lives.

Male, 30-39, Western US
 5561 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:08:56 AM

"Sure. At the same time, I advocate a system where net national wealth is greater."

If every person in the bottom 99% had $1,000 taken from them and given to the top 1%, who then invested it, the "net national wealth" would undoubtedly be greater. That doesn't make people better off.

A guy working 100 hours to feed his kids doesn`t get a whole lot better off because the dow closes up 200 points.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:04:27 AM

But I advocate so that the less fortunate have MORE money in their pocket at the end of the day and you are advocating a system you admit would result in them having LESS money in their pocket.

Sure. At the same time, I advocate a system where net national wealth is greater.

While your solution may relieve the poverty of an individual, my solution moves the entire national poverty line. I just think the long-term dividends for everyone will outweigh the short-term negatives.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02:03 AM

How can you agree but then advocate for a system you admit will put a considerable more amount of financial strain on those in our society that are already strained the most?

The current system is responsible for the strain on the non-wealthy. I can expand on this if you want, but it will be lengthy.

[quote]How do you make the argument for causation?[/quote]
Businesses cannot offer $2/hr. Nobody would accept that job. With redistribution, businesses can offer lower wages because the taxpayer will ensure a living wage. As more money is redistributed to the non-wealthy, wages will stay low.

Unfortunately, income from employment is different from income via redistribution. The entire economy slows with redistribution as there is no product or service to increase wealth. In addition, the recipient receives no skills to get a better job; thus, they are trapped.

More Comments >

Bored | Suggest a Link | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |