Perhaps the inconsistency is with your measure, and not the variance in human capability.
I think my measure is consistent.
Why stop at wealth? Why not suggest a steep tax for anyone who has received a cash gift for their birthdays (isn't that a "privilege of birth"?) or just cash gifts in general? Why not tax all charities, non-profits, and other donation based projects, right? I mean the sum of their work essentially amounts to asking for money. Hardly qualifies as "hard work and skill," right?
The issue, in my view, is with the market, which assigns rewards and punishments in ways that are not always just.
Sounds like a disagreement over rhetoric than substance.
Do you pay periodical stipends to your parents/custodians, siblings, teachers/educators, restaurateurs who may have fed you on occasion, retail stores, barbers, or for that matter, anyone who has given you advice?
Yes, I pay my taxes.
No tax makes sense to me.
That's not what I asked. Do you pay every person or establishment who or that has ever had an positive impact in your life a periodical stipend?
What measures do apply when attributing "merit"?
The 700+ American billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom half of households.Because their labor typically generates more commerce than the bottom half of households.
And yet you still want to turn on a faucet and have water come out, or flip a light switch and watch as electricity currents run through, or get in your car and drive on actual roads, all of which were made possible thanks to the infrastructure our tax dollars put in place. But when it's your turn to contribute to the society you have taken advantage of since birth, suddenly that's an issue.
Individually? No. What does that have to do with anything I've argued?
By whatever measure you prescribe too I am generally of the opinion that everyone merits the basic necessities.
Is it your contention that billionaires worked harder
and contribute more wealth generating potential to society
than the women who have already raised a generation?
The teachers who taught them?
The firemen, doctors and paramedics that keep them safe?
The factory and farm laborers who produce the products they are bought and sold?
No man is an island.
Billionaires would be unable to survive without us.
It is worth asking yourself who needs whom,
who does the actual work that makes the machinery of society function and who is actually making bigger sacrifices in their day to day life.
By whatever measure you prescribe too I am generally of the opinion that everyone merits the basic necessities.I am not.
I specifically omitted the words, "work harder." I said, "generate more commerce" which isn't necessarily contingent on how hard one works.
than the women who have already raised a generation?Which of these women generate six or more figures of income?
No ones existence is guaranteed or justified.
Either we all merit basic necessities and human dignity
or none of us do.
Money is a means to an end it is not an end in and of itself. Simply generating revenue (especially personal revenue) is a poor metric for most worthwhile human so far as I can tell.
There would be no people to make any income without them they are responsible for literally all income now being generated. By your metric women are more important than billionairs. Perhaps you should treat them accordingly.
No ones existence is guaranteed or justified.What does this mean?
I do not conflate "merit basic necessities" with "human dignity."
No one "merits" basic necessities.
What?! Since when were we gauging how "worthwhile" a human is?
What the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks? When did this discussion become an inspection of how importantly I treat women?
Since you insinuated that some humans (specifically poor ones) deserve to be deprived of basic necessities and therefore life. You have essentially insinuated that some humans are not worth keeping alive. This is a pretty direct way of communicating how you would gauge human worth.You clearly equate someone's worth directly with their financial worth. If I am somehow mistaken about then perhaps you should examine your language because you have as much as said that this is the case.
Since you insinuated that some humans (many of them women) deserve to be deprived of basic necessities and therefore life. You have essentially insinuated that some humans are not worth keeping alive. This is a pretty terrible way to treat women.
Since you insinuated that some humans (specifically poor ones) deserve to be deprived of basic necessities and therefore life. You have essentially insinuated that some humans are not worth keeping alive. This is a pretty direct way of communicating how you would gauge human worth.
I do not conflate "merit basic necessities" with "human dignity."
No ones existence is guaranteed or justified.
Either we all merit basic necessities and human dignity or none of us do.
how do you personally distinguish the one from the other ?
would you equate "human dignity" with "self-worth" ?
NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING--unless delineated and stipulated explicitly in the terms of a willfully entered contract.
nothing would please me more than for you to withdraw the proverbial hand you believe feeds me or anyone else
No one is claiming in any moralistic sense that you owe anyone anything. The point is that you continue to enjoy and take advantage of everything brought to society as a result of tax dollars while arguing that you have no moral obligation to pay into it.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have taxes, so be it.
Move somewhere where they don't have public roads or a public infrastructure system that the rest of society paid for to ensure everyone can enjoy the basic necessities in life.
Somehow I suspect you won't.
Complete strawman. This has nothing to do with the idea that anyone is feeding you. This is about the fact that the means by which you feed yourself was put in place by the very system you rail against as immoral.
No ones existence is guaranteed or justified.please elaborate
Either we all merit basic necessities and human dignity or none of us do.perhaps you could format this as some sort of propositional statement or syllogism
IF humans are worth preserving as a species THEN it is worth affording humans basic necessities and human dignity.
Arguing that one is obligated to pay the government taxes is like arguing one is obligated to pay a local mob "protection money."
Case in point: it was incumbent upon the Ukrainian residents to flee their homes rather than oppose Russia's invasion.
In fact, the government doesn't provide a marketable service
