And to elaborate, it’s because this suggests that a person has more than enough resources for their own needs and comfort, and yet in a world of so much suffering they prioritize yet greater comfort for themselves. I’m not religious, but am firmly in the Saint Basil camp that the extra cloak (or resources more generally) belongs to those who lack them.
The fuck? Where is your limit then to purchase power Vs donating to those less fortunate?
I mean, if 40k USD is your limit, what about housing? Boat? Would it be ok to have ten 4k cars? Two 30k cars?
Can you rationalize drinking that imported beer last weekend when you could have given those 15 bucks to a homeless guy on the street?
I mean, arbitrary set a value point for a car as excessive creates more problem for you and your ideal then not having that limit. At least the Buddhist monks who give away all their worldy goods to focus on meditation are consistent.
The comment you are replying to is probably more about finding a balance between comfort and luxury than an exact guide on what limit to apply to your spending. At least that’s how I take it.
It’s not complicated. Have what is sufficient for your actual needs and the rest is by definition excessive. Do you need two cars? Then have two cars. Do you need a boat? Then have a boat. Being legalistic and literal about it is not the point. However, many people justify every excess under the vague umbrella of “I worked hard for that!” Meanwhile, the many people suffering in this world work harder still merely to survive and they receive no such comforts, because economic myths about bootstraps and hard work are not reality.
Define needs. Do you need Egyptian cotton pillowcases?
I prefer a more blanket approach of progressive taxation. If someone has a ton of disposable income, they best be paying a large % on taxes to support the rest, and those taxes should be used for social safety nets like universal health care, housing, and universal basic income. This raises the floor, lowers the ceiling, but still allows for gradations in the middle to provide incentive for professional development and creativity.
I would say it’s up to each person to define what their needs are. To take the example of the pillowcases, I don’t need that, but suppose there’s someone who struggles to sleep and for whatever reason, they find that these sorts of pillowcases greatly improve the situation for them. I’m not going to say “no, you shouldn’t have that!” However, if a person is laxly defining their own needs and they feel upset when someone suggests a general sentiment about excess, then that person’s own mind might be suggesting something to them about the nature of their actual needs, as opposed to what might be a justification for excess.
Drives a car that costs more than say…$40,000.
And to elaborate, it’s because this suggests that a person has more than enough resources for their own needs and comfort, and yet in a world of so much suffering they prioritize yet greater comfort for themselves. I’m not religious, but am firmly in the Saint Basil camp that the extra cloak (or resources more generally) belongs to those who lack them.
Excess is apathy to real suffering.
The fuck? Where is your limit then to purchase power Vs donating to those less fortunate?
I mean, if 40k USD is your limit, what about housing? Boat? Would it be ok to have ten 4k cars? Two 30k cars?
Can you rationalize drinking that imported beer last weekend when you could have given those 15 bucks to a homeless guy on the street?
I mean, arbitrary set a value point for a car as excessive creates more problem for you and your ideal then not having that limit. At least the Buddhist monks who give away all their worldy goods to focus on meditation are consistent.
The comment you are replying to is probably more about finding a balance between comfort and luxury than an exact guide on what limit to apply to your spending. At least that’s how I take it.
It’s not complicated. Have what is sufficient for your actual needs and the rest is by definition excessive. Do you need two cars? Then have two cars. Do you need a boat? Then have a boat. Being legalistic and literal about it is not the point. However, many people justify every excess under the vague umbrella of “I worked hard for that!” Meanwhile, the many people suffering in this world work harder still merely to survive and they receive no such comforts, because economic myths about bootstraps and hard work are not reality.
Define needs. Do you need Egyptian cotton pillowcases?
I prefer a more blanket approach of progressive taxation. If someone has a ton of disposable income, they best be paying a large % on taxes to support the rest, and those taxes should be used for social safety nets like universal health care, housing, and universal basic income. This raises the floor, lowers the ceiling, but still allows for gradations in the middle to provide incentive for professional development and creativity.
I would say it’s up to each person to define what their needs are. To take the example of the pillowcases, I don’t need that, but suppose there’s someone who struggles to sleep and for whatever reason, they find that these sorts of pillowcases greatly improve the situation for them. I’m not going to say “no, you shouldn’t have that!” However, if a person is laxly defining their own needs and they feel upset when someone suggests a general sentiment about excess, then that person’s own mind might be suggesting something to them about the nature of their actual needs, as opposed to what might be a justification for excess.