'robin hood' bankers

carolt

Generali wrote: »

This forum is very strange sometimes. People with broadly left wing views seem to be against tax but in favour of theft....

I'm not against tax, I'm against misusing of taxes.

And yes, if you put it that way, I am in favour of theft.

But is not all property theft?

bendix

Generali wrote: »

I'm sure that most of sub-Saharan Africa feels the same about you.

The next time I receive one of those Nigerian scam emails, I shall forward it to ninky. As it is theft redistributing wealth from a relatively rich person (ninky) to a relatively poor person (the african scammers), I am sure she will be happy to go along for the ride.

Why can't I help but thinking that ninky's support of theft from the rich in favour of the poor would have some cut off point in terms of moral acceptability, and that that ninky's own wealth level would be under that cut-off point?

carolt

I would be extremely surprised if the African scammers weren't a lot better off than ninky.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Why can't I help but thinking that ninky's support of theft from the rich in favour of the poor would have some cut off point in terms of moral acceptability, and that that ninky's own wealth level would be under that cut-off point?

not at all. i'd happily see a more equal distribution of wealth even if it meant i had less. i'd also happily not own anything so long as i had access to shelter, food and freedom to do stuff.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

not at all. i'd happily see a more equal distribution of wealth even if it meant i had less. i'd also happily not own anything so long as i had access to shelter, food and freedom to do stuff.

Yes, yes, I'm sure you would. Well, don't let anyone stop you . . you're more than free to give away your possessions, you know.

I saw a story in the press on Sunday about a Cambridge University lecturer who has decided he only needs £18000 a year to live on, and has agreed to give every penny he earns over that to charity for the rest of his life. In total he is likely to give away £1.5m based on future earning projections.

I look forward to you reporting that you will be doing the same.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Yes, yes, I'm sure you would. Well, don't let anyone stop you . . you're more than free to give away your possessions, you know.

I saw a story in the press on Sunday about a Cambridge University lecturer who has decided he only needs £18000 a year to live on, and has agreed to give every penny he earns over that to charity for the rest of his life. In total he is likely to give away £1.5m based on future earning projections.

I look forward to you reporting that you will be doing the same.

i'm no saint but i do give money away to help people - it probably does add up to quite a bit a year (thousands):A. but i don't know if it's that helpful just to take myself as an example. i'm talking about the principle of taking from the super wealthy (and not just those who have more than starving people in africa) to give to the destitute.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i'm no saint but i do give money away to help people - it probably does add up to quite a bit a year (thousands):A. but i don't know if it's that helpful just to take myself as an example. i'm talking about the principle of taking from the super wealthy (and not just those who have more than starving people in africa) to give to the destitute.

That's already done in a formalised, legal way through the tax system. If you had money just being arbitarily taken from the rich there'd be chaos.

!!!!!!, half of the UK seem to think that a head teacher with decades of experience and success on 80 thousand a year is a fat cat.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

If you had money just being arbitarily taken from the rich there'd be chaos.

absolutely and i guess that's why these bankers have been prosecuted. but you could say the same about many actions that you might consider 'morally' right - the law / system steps in to prevent chaos by mediating the system. examples might include adoption of children, distributing food to the poor, even giving blood. you can't just take it upon yourself to do these things, there are hurdles and tick boxes etc etc that you have to go through. however, we do (generally) agree as a society that these are morally good things to do, therefore we have systems to enable them.

i guess the big difference between us is that i think that systemically it would be a good thing to encourage a more even distribution of wealth whilst you think it is better to have a wealth gap.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

i'm no saint but i do give money away to help people - it probably does add up to quite a bit a year (thousands):A. but i don't know if it's that helpful just to take myself as an example. i'm talking about the principle of taking from the super wealthy (and not just those who have more than starving people in africa) to give to the destitute.

Again, I repeat: There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that yourself. Live your principles. Go ahead, if it makes you feel happy and self-fulfilled.

It's funny how when that is pointed out to those who advocate such things, they turn from specifics (endorsing and supporting as morally right theft, but only if it's from the rich) to vague principles that it isnt particularly helpful to talk about themselves in isolation.

Go figure.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i guess the big difference between us is that i think that systemically it would be a good thing to encourage a more even distribution of wealth whilst you think it is better to have a wealth gap.

Again you're putting words into my mouth (and also you're trying to change the terms of the discussion).

To be clear, you have said that it is perfectly reasonable to take money (and presumably property) on a completely arbitrary basis from people you deem to be rich and give it to those you deem to be deserving.

What do you think the practical implications would be of this? How, for example, could you codify and cope with this in the courts. Would there be a defence of 'the person I stole from was rich'? What proportion of a 'rich' person's property would you be allowed to take? What if a well off person stole from a rich one?

It's all a bit silly IMO.