Morality and Income Survey

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Jun 17, 2012.

?

What is the maximum financial income a valuable but moral person should expect?

Poll closed Jun 12, 2013.
  1. $500K

    1 vote(s)
    2.2%
  2. $1M

    5 vote(s)
    10.9%
  3. $20M

    3 vote(s)
    6.5%
  4. $100M

    1 vote(s)
    2.2%
  5. Unlimited based on Market Mechanics

    18 vote(s)
    39.1%
  6. Undecided

    3 vote(s)
    6.5%
  7. Other

    2 vote(s)
    4.3%
  8. Don't Care

    13 vote(s)
    28.3%
  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    Say you are the smartest human being alive who has performed untold acts to benefit mankind. Besides making you feel good and possibly being a hero to humanity, what should your maximum financial annual reward be or is there a limit?

    My point is do moral people really want to live like Kings at the expense of others or should they be happy with enough to live comfortably?
     
  2. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #2
    Going to say unlimited because a moral person could invest billions of their personal earnings into a new green technology, or food technology to feed the poor or some such thing.

    You might need to predicate a link between immorality and money/rich living before the hounds jump on you :D

    Sometimes I wish guys like Branson had unlimited funds. Maybe he'd create some sort of program to send our DNA to various solar systems..
     
  3. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #3
    Wrong question

    I don't care if someone earns a lot of money, as long as they invest it putting people to work, instead of spending it on McMansions. The question to ask is how much should people be allowed to spend before the draconian graduated spending tax kicks in. I suggest using the Eisenhower (moderate Republican) administration as a guide.
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    It's an interesting question. I try not to judge a person's morality based on their wealth or lack of it. You could likewise ask if a moral person could live off the largess of others. In either case, IMO, the answer is conceivably "yes."

    I do believe that a moral (and wise) person would be less driven to pursue wealth and live more contentedly with less. And conversely a moral (and wise) person would understand the value of self-sufficiency and do what they could to not be a burden on others.

    ----------

    And I would simply stop there. I frankly don't care what wealthy people do with their money, anymore than I want somebody poorer than me being concerned with what I do with mine.

    What is a concern of mine is political policies that influence the distribution of wealth. Those can and should be be manipulated to ensure that the distribution is not detrimental to the overall health of the economy and society.
     
  5. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    I picked an amount that should allow anyone to live comfortably and better than most, $1m annually. Under no circumstances do I see a moral person, at least my brand of morality who would choose to take more than that if it means other people will do without. And I don't mean to minimize the aspect that individuals must put out effort if they expect to live a comfortable life.

    And yes this is completely academic. If I made 100's of millions in pork belly futures, I might be weak enough to argue I deserve it just because. :D
     
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #6
    I thought we were talking about "morality"? ;)

    I actually do care what the wealthy spend their money on. If they want to spend it on gambling or aged whiskey or killer weed, they should pay heavy sin taxes on that. They can buy all the organic vegetables they want. If they want to spend it opening a factory that puts 1000's of people to work, they can keep all of that money, and maybe add a small incentive.


    Different questions really. One question is about consumption. The other is about power. What is an unsolved problem as far as I am concerned is how to encourage creative entrepreneurship, like Apple (this is Mac Rumors isn't it?) and disallow political investments like the Wisconsin recall election.
     
  7. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #7
    I don't really understand how accumulating money can make you more or less moral.
     
  8. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #8
    I don't think one can set a number for what is moral and not.

    Insanely rich people have come in moral and immoral forms since forever. I think they would have been moral or immoral no matter how much money they had, it all just depends on what level of society they are screwing over.
     
  9. Fazzy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Location:
    check the tracking device
    #9
    You mean like an ultra mega nobel prize?

    why.. I think my self esteem is higher now :D
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    $100 million would do me. Wouldn't change me one bit.
     
  11. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #11
    Provided they are taxed, the income will still be redistributed and so the more money that someone creates/earns, the more they indirectly benefit society. Now tax rules haven't always worked in this fashion, but that is really besides the point for the sake of this discussion. How one person who makes tons of income affects others with significantly lower incomes is still something of debate.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    Now I'm no economist, so feel free to correct me if this assumption is wrong. But the overall economy of the United States (for instance) normally grows a couple of percent a year.

    So it seems to me that most wealth is not money created, it's money redistributed ... or reallocated.

    Edit: though I suppose even 2% of 14 trillion dollars is a pretty hefty sum of created wealth.
     
  13. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #13
    Apparently this question goes way back:


    "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
     
  14. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #14
    yeah and it still doesn't make any sense to me
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    Because the most valuable things one can accumulate in life are wisdom and compassion ... or as some believe a connection with God.

    Does that really need an explanation?
     
  16. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #16
    that has nothing to do with that quote at all

    that quote is referencing greed.

    I agree that wisdom is something to accumulate, idk about the need or value of compassion though.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    I'd look into that if I were you.
     
  18. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #18
    why?
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Because you don't know it's value.
     
  20. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #20
    what is it's value then?
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    Priceless.

    :)
     
  22. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #22
    why
     
  23. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #23
    £100,000,000,000,000. Doesn't matter if that person give £50,000,000,000,000 to the poor. Let them enjoy their yacht.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    It says nothing whatever of greed.
     
  25. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    But it's referencing greed.

    Being rich has historically been synonymous with being greedy.

    And if that's not what it means, than the quote doesn't mean anything since wealth is relative
     

Share This Page