Thread: The class warfare argument

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Oh, you can talk all you want to him.

ahoy C-B-M,

thank ye matey, very kind 'o ye!

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by C-B-M

*sigh* Let me try this one more time. Would you be OK with me saying that, no matter how big the fire is, one one truck will ever be dispatched to a poor person's house?

*sigh* As long as they get there as quickly as humanly possible, and make every effort to save the people's lives within that house, then yes, if the job only calls for one truck, then so be it. Again, please get to your point, or I'm going to have to bow out of this throroughly enlightening conversation.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Ahoy, my pirate friend! Sorry I haven't been responding to your posts. I have been reading them, though! I just want to give C-B-M my full attention for the moment.

not a problem Jefe, its an enjoyable exchange.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Jefe

*sigh* As long as they get there as quickly as humanly possible, and make every effort to save the people's lives within that house, then yes, if the job only calls for one truck, then so be it. Again, please get to your point, or I'm going to have to bow out of this throroughly enlightening conversation.

I'm not saying "if the job only calls for one truck." When you say that, it sounds like -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you could ask for more trucks. I'm saying that you can't ask for more trucks. Like, you call and say you need more trucks and I say "uh ...are you at a poor person's house? Then no." Would that be OK?

When I ask the question repeatedly, it's because you're not answering my specific question. I don't care what answer you give, as long as it's not a dodge.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

I'm not saying "if the job only calls for one truck." When you say that, it sounds like -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you could ask for more trucks. I'm saying that you can't ask for more trucks. Like, you call and say you need more trucks and I say "uh ...are you at a poor person's house? Then no." Would that be OK?

That depends. Are people trapped inside? Are people's lives at risk? Would more trucks be needed to save those people's lives? If the answer is "yes", then no, it wouldn't be OK to deny more trucks be sent there. We, as a society, pay for our fire companies to save lives. Rich people's lives aren't more valuable than those of poor people's, if that's what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

When I ask the question repeatedly, it's because you're not answering my specific question. I don't care what answer you give, as long as it's not a dodge.

I'm not dodging anything. Ask clear and concise questions, and I'll answer them as best I can.

Originally Posted by Jefe

That depends. Are people trapped inside? Are people's lives at risk? Would more trucks be needed to save those people's lives? If the answer is "yes", then no, it wouldn't be OK to deny more trucks be sent there. We, as a society, pay for our fire companies to save lives. Rich people's lives aren't more valuable than those of poor people's, if that's what you're getting at.

I don't know if peoples' lives are at risk. Nobody ever knows that. So are you basically saying that the response to a fire should merely be based on the size of the fire, not on the person who paid more taxes?

Originally Posted by C-B-M

I don't know if peoples' lives are at risk. Nobody ever knows that. So are you basically saying that the response to a fire should merely be based on the size of the fire, not on the person who paid more taxes?

Again, that's not a very clear question, so I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. I'm also not completely sure how fire companies respond to fires, or how they currently determine how many trucks, personel, and departments should respond. The way it works (I believe) is that the fire company assumes the worst - they assume that people's lives are at risk (regardless of their standing in society, or their accumulated wealth, or the amount of taxes they've paid), and respond accordingly, with all trucks and personel that are available at the nearest fire station. If, when they arrive, it appears as though they're going to need backup, they call for assistance from another station. A larger residence may require more fire trucks to respond. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. I believe this is a good and proper way to respond to fires. Does that answer your question?

Originally Posted by Jefe

Again, in very simplistic terms, yes. I don't think it's too much to ask that you get more when you pay more. However, off the top of my head, I can't really think of what a rich person, who is paying more in taxes, would expect to get in return. If his relatively large house is on fire, then it's not unreasonable to expect that more fire trucks and personel should show up to put out the fire, as compared to someone with a smaller house, where only a few trucks are needed to douse the blaze. Is that type of services you mean?

How about a personal police escort?

Originally Posted by Jefe

Again, that's not a very clear question, so I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. I'm also not completely sure how fire companies respond to fires, or how they currently determine how many trucks, personel, and departments should respond. The way it works (I believe) is that the fire company assumes the worst - they assume that people's lives are at risk (regardless of their standing in society, or their accumulated wealth, or the amount of taxes they've paid), and respond accordingly, with all trucks and personel that are available at the nearest fire station. If, when they arrive, it appears as though they're going to need backup, they call for assistance from another station. A larger residence may require more fire trucks to respond. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. I believe this is a good and proper way to respond to fires. Does that answer your question?

Yes. But it also contradicts your earlier statement that people who pay more for services should expect more of those services. That is, the way things are done now is that the size of the fire -- not the salary of the resident -- dictates how much manpower is sent. If the fire spreads, then more trucks are sent. Again, not caring about the salary or tax status of the owners. This occurs even if the building is deserted or even abandoned. Does that sound reasonable to you? If so, how do you reconcile that with the tax statement made earlier?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

How about a personal police escort?

Or how about just more interest? In other words, if a poor person's house is burglarized, then one detective is assigned to it. But if a rich person's house is burglarized, then a team of multiple detectives is assigned to focus specifically on that case with as much additional resources as they need.

So ...anyways, this is what I'm seeing. Apparently, there is a view that taxes are a social obligation, that everyone should pay some taxes. But taxes should be variable and those who utilize more services should pay more. And with that, it is also reasonable and agreed that the people who pay more should expect more services in return.

But that's not how it works. In real life, the people who pay more do not utilize more services. In fact, the people who pay the least (i.e., nothing) use the most resources. When we are told the rich should have their taxes increased, it is never argued that it should be done "so that we can provide more services for the rich." Right? Of course not. It is said that we need to provide more services for the poor.

Moreover, in your argument, despite what you said about expectations of more resources, it seems that oddly that is never followed through on. No, we must assume that, for example, lives are at risk and in that instance everything goes out the window and we must respond maximally until we can be assured that no lives are in danger. Now, don't get me wrong -- that's quite reasonable. But that's not in accordance with the stated tax definition we discussed.

What is clear is that all people have a social obligation and society in return has an obligation to all of its citizens. But if that obligation -- to protect life, for example -- is equal, then so is the obligation of the people equal. Therefore, taxes should be shared equally.