1) Relative wealth is neither 'rich', nor 'poor'; it's how many resources you consume/control compared to others. I don't consider myself 'poor' because I have everything a reasonable human being could ask for for a content life. Having more would be nice but, to use a loaded word, I don't 'need' more than I have. All your statement indiactes is that the vast majority of people are greedy fools who measure happiness by how much they own. It certainly isn't an argument for giving them more. 2) What is 'fair'? I don't need more than I have, so I can't see why I would want to punish people who are lucky/hard working enough to have more than me. If, by social definitions I'm 'poor', then that's a very strong argument to reduce the tax burden across society, because it simply demonstrates that 'poor' is a state of comfort and happiness and there's no need for socially funded initiatives to relieve me of my burden of poverty. I am responsible for my own life and the success or failure thereof. Punishing others because they have more than me wouldn't make me happier or more content. It would simply be unfair to them for no real gain to anyone. Why would I consider myself 'exploited'? I'm healthy, happy, enjoying myself and have all the material comforts any person could ask for the above to continue. Exploited is slave labourers on Columbian Cocaine plantations, not dedadent wessterners like me or you. Why should I be automatically granted a greater share of resources simply based on effort I put in? What would you consider to be a 'fair' share for me? If you think that you've got too much and I have too little relative to our 'effort', feel free to send me a cheque, but if you do I'll just laugh at you for being fool enough to think that my financial situation warrants it, and then buy another few acres of rainforest to put into public trust for future generations, which is what I usually do with spare cash.
Re: Maths clarification
2) What is 'fair'? I don't need more than I have, so I can't see why I would want to punish people who are lucky/hard working enough to have more than me. If, by social definitions I'm 'poor', then that's a very strong argument to reduce the tax burden across society, because it simply demonstrates that 'poor' is a state of comfort and happiness and there's no need for socially funded initiatives to relieve me of my burden of poverty.
I am responsible for my own life and the success or failure thereof. Punishing others because they have more than me wouldn't make me happier or more content. It would simply be unfair to them for no real gain to anyone.
Why would I consider myself 'exploited'? I'm healthy, happy, enjoying myself and have all the material comforts any person could ask for the above to continue. Exploited is slave labourers on Columbian Cocaine plantations, not dedadent wessterners like me or you. Why should I be automatically granted a greater share of resources simply based on effort I put in? What would you consider to be a 'fair' share for me? If you think that you've got too much and I have too little relative to our 'effort', feel free to send me a cheque, but if you do I'll just laugh at you for being fool enough to think that my financial situation warrants it, and then buy another few acres of rainforest to put into public trust for future generations, which is what I usually do with spare cash.