[logicchains]

>I always wonder how average people try to defend the rich and argue that it is totally justified that they earn something like one year of salary in a month or even more.

I'm one of those "average" people. CEOs are paid that much because they found some other people willing to pay them that much, and I'm not arrogant enough to presume my preferences for how the people paying them should spend their money are superior to their own preferences.

Look at it as empathy. Would I like it if somebody came and started telling me how to spend my money? Hell no! Then why should I wish that upon whomever's paying CEOs?

[asveikau]

> Would I like it if somebody came and started telling me how to spend my money? Hell no!

You and a bunch of others are going to think I am totally crazy for saying it, but I think you might be too possessive of "your" money.

Maybe you think you got it because you are totally that awesome and really deserve it more than somebody else. But surely you were supported throughout your lifetime to end up making that money. It's a collaborative effort.

Sometimes I get approached by homeless types on the sidewalk and I give them a $20 or something. Occasionally it's been larger than that, often it's been smaller. One might call that being generous. I am surely in a position of privilege being able to do that without it hurting much. But really all I am doing is giving them a piece of paper. Particles of the universe just like any other matter. I don't feel it's mine any more than it's theirs. So it moves from my wallet to their hand. No big deal.

I will admit that this attitude has its limits. You can go broke doing it too much. But there is room for it in our lives.

[isoskeles]

> But really all I am doing is giving them a piece of paper. Particles of the universe just like any other matter.

That is an odd point to make when you are fully aware of how much $20 could mean to a homeless person.

[asveikau]

I think it's both things. Very meaningful for the value that we all put in it, and at the same time, it's nothing at all.

In an ideal world maybe everyone would be provided for and we wouldn't obsess over paper. But the system is a sort of lesser approximation of fairness. "Worst one except for all the others", as the saying goes.

[logicchains]

>Maybe you think you got it because you are totally that awesome and really deserve it more than somebody else. But surely you were supported throughout your lifetime to end up making that money. It's a collaborative effort.

My response would be that everybody who supported me was paid to do so, so they already got their fair share. Except for my parents, but personally I don't think children owe their parents because the parents are the ones who make the decision to have a child, so they should bear responsibility for the children's existence, not the child (i.e. they're obligated to provide for the child they created).

>Sometimes I get approached by homeless types on the sidewalk and I give them a $20 or something. Occasionally it's been larger than that, often it's been smaller. One might call that being generous.

There's a big difference (or at least there is in my eyes) between voluntarily giving someone something, and being forced by somebody else to do so. People who oppose punitive taxation doesn't necessarily oppose it because they oppose charitable giving, they oppose it because they don't think people have a right to decide how other people spend their money. For the record, it seems that in the US conservatives give more to charity than liberals: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-de... .

[asveikau]

> My response would be that everybody who supported me was paid to do so,

That strikes me as a cynical read on the situation. Could it be that some of those people liked you, believed in you, wanted you to thrive for selfless reasons that were not economic?

> People who oppose punitive taxation ... oppose it because they don't think people have a right to decide how other people spend their money.

That's the thing, the "their money" part is sort of a fiction. Additionally it is totally fungible, not earmarked or put conditions upon, it doesn't go into a little pile marked "asveikau's taxes" for only the parts of government I approve of. We pool it, and it's all or nothing, take the good with the bad. We have elections for any disagreements that may arise from there.

[logicchains]

>That strikes me as a cynical read on the situation. Could it be that some of those people liked you, believed in you, wanted you to thrive for selfless reasons that were not economic?

Maybe that did, but it doesn't change that they did whatever they did without asking for anything in return. At least to me the idea of a system in which you owe somebody more for something they did (either something they did out of generosity or because you paid for it) than what you explicitly agreed upon is quite unpleasant. Like if somebody came to my house, asked "could I mow your lawn", and I was like "uh okay sure, I suppose so", then afterwards they were like "ah-hah, now you have to pay me $200!" or "ah-hah, now you have to clean my kitchen!", I wouldn't consider that very fair. Ideally an agreement/contract is only valid when both parties understand and agree to it.

>That's the thing, the "their money" part is sort of a fiction. Additionally it is totally fungible, not earmarked or put conditions upon, it doesn't go into a little pile marked "asveikau's taxes" for only the parts of government I approve of.

Well then that's where the disagreement comes from. For people who believe in property rights, money isn't a fiction, it's a proxy for the claim people have over the value of the product of their labour. For many of the American founders, it was a consequence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law . For economically conservative Christians, it was a product of the argument that commandment "Thou shalt not steal" is not waived merely because enough people have voted for you to steal. If someone believes for whatever reason in an inherent moral right to their property, they won't believe it's acceptable for that right to be violated just because other people voted to do so.

[asveikau]

I think it's hard to justify some of this with Christianity in particular. Remember what Jesus said about the poor and related topics. I don't see him as being particularly possessive or hoarding of currency or property. Also, "render unto Caesar".