|
That is actually part of the argument for no government, however when they don't do it, some can be taken from them to still help people in need by social safety nets.
Does it really make sense to not tax the wealthy at all so they can give freely if they chose all that they could have, and let many suffer for that ability for them to make the choice with everything they could have?
They can have a higher tax, and still do much good with moneys or other things they might have, what ever they may be.
But the basic point is if man was required without choice to do what is right, then really what would it say about them, not much, and they would not exist anyways. So although it has been said much could be expected of them, to say that they have to, would not help them.
So the question is, does making the rich give a little, to help many, change their choice of to give? They can always give more if they want, or not, but letting people suffer by that argument, heh, doesn't really make sense.
There is an exclusion from that, it is possible the rich already gave away all their money, and have been paying for think tanks, and R and D, and lobbyist and such, and they really don't have any money at all. However that does not match up to the lifestyle choice they have, and if that was true, then the fault would be them perpetuating the myth that they have money to try and get people to think they have power, and then trying to get somethings to give to others by skimming off of other peoples work.
It is completely possible that many of the wealthy really have very little, and it is to create the perception that they are rich that is the purpose. For instance Madoff really had no money, but the perception of him having money allowed him to make some decisions for himself and others on where things would go. So it really is a deep topic.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
