TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Well, the force behind that punch is the same, regardless of what your target is (the "buying power). See? But the harm done by that force changes based on who it hits.
Only because you are defining "harm" relative to total wealth. Again, that's the very assumption I disagree with, so using an analogy that assumes this is true doesn't really clear things up.
So why do two impacts of the exact same force deal different amounts of harm to the two people? The baby vs the 35 year old? They are the same force, so the harm should be the same, no? (Obviously not).
It's because the two people being struck are build different and the damage dealt is different. In this case things like bone structure, size, muscle, etc.
Yes. Because in the case of a baby being hit versus an adult being hit, the "harm" is based on the relative physical injury suffered, which will obviously vary based on the relative size/toughness of the one being hit. But in the case of dollars, the harm is based on the purchasing power reduction. That's a constant, not relative, factor. A millionaire's dollar buys exactly the same thing as a pauper's dollar. In contrast, a baby's arm is not capable of lifting as much as an adults, right? They are not equivalent comparisons because in every physical comparison a baby is less capable than an adult. The baby can't run as fast, can't reach as high, can't lift as much, and yes, also will suffer greater injury from the same physical force. But dollars don't work like that. Each dollar is equal no matter who has it. That's why the "baby hit in the face" analogy just isn't accurate.
Quote:
That's the link between the two. That while the forces involved are identical, due to other factors the harm done is different. While the number value of the money involved may be the same, the other factors of the two people that are paying it is different, and the "harm" is different as a result. If you ignore everything about the people and their situation and focus only on the amount of the money, that is the only way you can say they are equal. But it's just like saying that punching a baby and punching a 35 year old end up with the same harm.
Again, I just straight up disagree. Those are completely different things and should not be compared that way. I'll repeat my belief that the kind of relative harm you're proposing is born of a kind of strawman version of "the rich", who have so much money they don't need to worry about spending it. The reality is that most wealthy people view a given amount of money with exactly the same value as someone struggling paycheck to paycheck. Those who don't often end up just like those lottery winners who find themselves bankrupt after a year or two. It's a common misconception (and leads to really poor choices in the case of lottery winners), and is just plain not true. I'll also repeat my belief that this sort of idea is perpetuated primarily out of a desire to make it easier to accept higher and higher taxes on "the rich". When you decide that it's not really hurting them, it's easier to view taxing that money as "free money" that could be better used by the government. Which is also a pretty common argument I've seen.
I don't say this as some kind of defense of the rich or anything. I honestly believe that when people adopt the kind of relative value viewpoint towards money it not only leads them to supporting increasingly unfair tax schemes, but also hurts them in their own financial decision making. It's predicated on the idea that once one has "enough money" to provide a basic living, everything else is just excess. Which is initially used as an argument for taxing the rich, but I suspect also subconsciously influences the spending habits of the working and middle classes. It's often shocking to me to see how many people do seem to fall into the "spend every dime" mentality. I happen to think that's harmful and yes, that it derives from the same sort of relative harm idea you're espousing. If you view every dollar you have as equal, no matter how much you have, you start doing things like making good spending choices, even if you could afford more. You stop and ask yourself if that expense is worth the dollars spent, and not just whether you can afford it. And that's what leads to saving rather than borrowing, and ultimately leads to wealth accumulation for you.
Um... Which should be a good thing.
