It seems to me that you are defending a system that enriches only a few to the detriment of the rest. I see that as immoral.
I think it is not immoral because your presumption is flawed. You are essentially stating that a byproduct of someone accumulating wealth is that someone else must suffer or have wealth forcibly taken. That is false.
Are you christian?
Nope and irrelevant.
What about that part in the bible about turning out the money changers? Isn't greed (gluttony) one of the 7 sins?
Bible citation is one of the main reasons for my above answer.
Let me turn your argument on its ear... If you are giving the vast majority of wealth to only a handful of people, aren't you, in essence, taking it from the rest bit by bit? That money has to come from somewhere and wealth is a finite resource. So, in essence, the extremely wealthy use their policies take from the rest to amass more and more wealth.
If you want to start an ideological debate at least make sure the presumptions in your hypothetical scenarios are correct. Where am I getting this money to pass out? The wealthy can't simply take your money. You have to agree to give it to them. Giving them your money also does not diminish your ability to earn more later.
If you are giving the vast majority of wealth to only a handful of people, aren't you, in essence, taking it from the rest bit by bit?
Only the government can do this. Only the government can take money from people by force and give it to someone else. The business world doesn't work that way. Again you have to agree to give them your money.
Last edited: