Money causes behavior issues
Money is a necessity in the world we live in, you need it to survive. It’s just a piece of paper but it has so much value to it. When people get ahold of a lot of money whether it’s inherited, won from a lottery, or earned, people grow a different behavior. Money causes people to become greedy and careless whether it’s the poor or rich. This has always been an issue but of course as the years go by it gets worse. The prices in the market gradually increases making it easier for the poor to struggle while the rich are living no differently. There isn’t many people in the world that are willing to help the ones that are less fortunate. Money has become a dangerous necessity.
We know that money is ‘valuable’ but everyone doesn’t know the history or background of it. Money truly has no value itself, it’s just a piece of paper, the power it holds is to be used to purchase goods. When trading first started it was with gold. In the broadcast by the Planet Money team at NPR, they explain how money began and that money just represents the value of gold but it’s not worth anything. Now with this information it’s confusing how people can be considered ‘wealthy’ because of the number in their bank account. It’s odd how this also causes a change in behavior, we are all human and deserve to be treated equally. Money should not be causing a division in our world.
Anyone could be greedy, when being wealthy their whole whole life or even if they had hard times themselves. All anyone cares about is themselves, this could be good but also bad. If someone has the money or opportunity to help someone, they should. There isn’t enough good in the world. We are divided into classes and it’s normal to us. The lower class gets treated poorly while the higher class gets worshipped. People with more money have more opportunities in life, they get advice from other rich people on how to continue having a good flow of funds or maintain it properly.
There are experiments that have been used showing how people’s behavior change in situations. In the article “The rich are easily offended by unfairness” the author explains how studies were held to show if the less wealthy or the more wealthy would accept the unfair offer. “In this game, the proposer gives the responder an unfair offer of CN¥2, but keeps the remaining CN¥8 out of CN¥10. If the responder accepts the offer, each receives the proposed amounts; otherwise both receive nothing. We chose the ¥2/¥8 offer that can elicit roughly 50% rejection rates” this states the basics of the experiments. The three studies were all very similar, showing that more of the poor would accept the unfair offer and the rich would deny it because they took the others into consideration. This shows how money has such a quick effect on ones behavior, the less wealthy, only are thinking about how they never had that amount of money and how much it could benefit them. Money is so important in our lives that they don’t think twice in these situations.
Another unfair act is our taxing system. There should be greater acts in taxing the rich more than the poor, they should pay double. It is unfair given that the poor are already struggling as it is and now they are being taxed more than the ones who have enough money to pay. It makes absolutely no sense and is one of the inequalities in our world. Stated in the article “Taxing the Rich”, “Scheve and Stasavage argue that governments don’t tax the rich just because inequality is high or rising—they do it when people believe that such taxes compensate for the state unfairly privileging the wealthy.” This just explains how damaged our government is. It shouldn’t be that hard to make the rich have higher taxes and if not then both classes have equal taxes. Our world is built on inequality and no matter how much things are changed everyone will be treated unequally.
Center the word References, not Resources, not bold, and unpunctuated (don’t use a colon)
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, The rich are easily offended by unfairness: Wealth triggers spiteful rejection of unfair offers Published, 5April 2017
Scheve, Kenneth and Stasavage, David. Taxing the rich , published 2018
I like your linking technique! 🙂
I would like to know if I did this assignment correctly, if not what could I do to potentially make it better?
I look forward to a robust reading and response, Blueeee. I’m intrigued that a student would adopt the theme of fictional money after the Stone Money assignment. I’ll return as soon as I can.
Blueeee, readers are your dinner guests, and you are the server, if you remember the analogy. You need to entice them to the restaurant with promises and then deliver. Your title does not compel anyone to read your Introduction. Your first two sentences basically say: we have some food here, but we’re not open yet. Your next two sentences say: it’s traditional fare. As someone cruising by at dinnertime, I’ll probably keep looking for a restaurant with more personality.
You say money makes people greedy, but you know there’s always money, even for the poor. Do you really mean the poor aren’t greedy? Won’t scrape or steal for it? So . . . does money MAKE the rich greedy?
I wonder if you could find a really catchy anecdote about the wasteful spending habits of the filthy rich to open your argument.
Or a reflection on the windfall profits that the oil companies achieved during the pandemic. Were they taxed on the billions they earned while charging $5/gallon for gas? Nope. They spent the money buying back shares from their shareholders.
WINDFALL PROFITS GOOGLE
We need to tease passersby with our Blue Plate Specials, Blueeeee!
You’re trying to make an ethical argument here, Blueeee, not a Definition argument. We’re all human and deserve fair treatment, but the wealthy treat us poorly because we’re poor and they’re rich? You want to say money has no value, but you know its value (whether it’s based on big rocks, chunks of gold, dollar bills, or digital bitcoin) is the power to move goods and services. The power is real. Rich people can get a crew of people to show up at their boat docks in an hour to launch a yacht. The number in the bank account says so.
Where are you going with this?
Sticking with the server/diner analogy, Blueeee, this paragraph is the equivalent of someone walking past the table with a dessert tray above her head saying, “We have a very nice selection of desserts” but not showing us any.
If you have evidence of people “acting differently” following, say, a lottery win, bring it out. There has to be plenty of academic study about this:
The rest of your paragraph isn’t about “newly wealthy” people at all, or at least not exclusively, and it’s not convincing as “evidence.”
Your Study sounds like a good source for insight into perceived fairness differences based on wealth. But your explanation is so unclear we don’t know what it demonstrated. In the quote, the authors are actually describing how THEY, the experimenters, settled on a 20/80 split to divide respondents into equal halves for something involving yen. It doesn’t say anything about how the test subjects acted.
It’s hard to say how you react to this quote, Blueeee. Saying it illustrates how messed up things are doesn’t qualify as a refutation or an endorsement.
Stated in the article “Taxing the Rich”, “Scheve and Stasavage argue that governments don’t tax the rich just because inequality is high or rising—they do it when people believe that such taxes compensate for the state unfairly privileging the wealthy.”
Your demand that the rich be taxed fairly (though you don’t say what fair would mean) SOUNDS like an endorsement of the plan to “tax the rich” to compensate for the “unfair privileges” they receive. Doesn’t it?
A good use of your Definition argument, if I understand your Hypothesis, would be to describe what you believe to be a fair tax burden for all taxpayers.
One of the reviewers of your source “Taxing the Rich” expanded on the quotation you used by citing the term “equality of sacrifice.” It sounds like something that would appeal to your sense of justice. Here’s the review:
What is surprising about this book is how robustly the authors discount other widely held explanations for the gradual reduction in tax paid by the richest 1% since 1980. The influence of political lobbying, liberalised capital flows and the breakdown of the postwar consensus are, in their view, inadequate answers. What has changed is the focus of ‘equality of sacrifice,’ which has returned to a debate about fairness.—Zac Tate, Capx
If you want to pursue an angle for Definition, reforming the tax code to reflect “equality of sacrifice” would be worth a few words.
Thank you for your feedback!