Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
I have no doubt that much of the income generated by privileged wealth in this country is 'unproductive'. We have endlessly polluted market dynamics with distorting regulation and state manipulation that usually work to benefit the established interests (those with the wealth and influence to steer policy in their favor).
But outside the corrupting influence of the state, the notion that interest and capital gains aren't 'earned' income is naive. The profit derived from wise investment represents one of the most important jobs that get done in a free economy. That's something anti-market people never seem to get. Even in a state-run, command economy, someone has to make the decisions guiding how we apply our labor and resources. If they do it well, we all benefit. If they do it poorly, we all suffer.
In a free market, the people making these decisions are capitalists. They are the people in charge of deciding which projects are funded, and which aren't. When they make good decisions - we reward them with profits (interest and dividends). When they make bad decisions, they lose their investments, and someone else takes over.
LMAO!!! That sounds dreamy. But when they make bad decisions in America, they get bailed out with someone else's money.
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?
Link
It doesn't matter how they accumulated their wealth; it is theirs, plain and simple. The question is whether they should be taxed on that wealth or income and how much. The argument is whether or not they should pay more than lower income earners due to their good fortune, no matter how they came about that good fortune. For some, it is through hard work, others it is through good fortune, and some it is through inheritance. I am not interested in taking their wealth away from them. However, I do believe that they have a responsibility to contribute to the overall well being of the rest of society if they intend to continue earning and reaping the benefits that such a society has given them.
And no, being the job creators is not enough. They still should pay taxes and a reasonable amount. On another note, not all wealthy people are job creators. Many job creators become wealthy, but that does not mean that all wealthy people are job creators. Many just sock their money away in fairly safe investments and live off the earnings. I don't have a problem with that either, but they should pay a fair share of the tax burden, and their fair share is much greater than a minimum wage worker.
"Fairly safe investments". You mean, like large, stable companies that employ and provide job security for lots and lots of workers? THOSE sorts of fairly safe investments?
Bottom line: wealthy people are ALL job providers in one way or another, unless they've got their money stored in their mattresses.
And listening to people talk about "fair shares" gives me the willies, because it always seems to mean "We're going to punish you for not being a pitiful wage slave like we are".
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?
Link
I guess that would depend on your definition of "earn". If you define it as "suffering through a shitty job for someone else every day like I do", then no. The point of becoming rich is so you don't have to do that any more.
On the other hand, if you define it as "paying your dues to become wealthy enough to spend your time running your own business and/or managing your investments", then yeah. The vast majority of the rich DO earn their money. It's a known fact that most millionaires in this country are self-made.
You DID know that earnings from your own business are often not filed in the same way as income from a paycheck, right?
File this under "liberal class envy".
You realize that we would not be having this argument if the middle class and lower income earners had benefited even half as much as the super wealthy from increases in productivity over the last thirty years. But the fact is that income for the middle class and lower income earners has pretty much been stagnant while income for the very top has increased dramatically.
There are obviously many reasons for this, but the bottom line is that the super wealthy have lined their pockets at the expense of everyone else. Many companies, especially larger employers used to keep pension funds for employees' retirement. Then they switched to 401K plans where they contributed a significant amount to the employees' plans. Now, most of them have stopped doing that too, and all while their profits continued to increase and made them richer than ever. The workers who made it all possible have been left with very little, but the argument that is thrown in those very worker's faces is that they just aren't working hard enough.
The bottom line is that we wouldn't even be having a discussion concerning redistribution of income if everyone had benefitted from the productivity gains of the last 30 years.
It doesn't matter how they accumulated their wealth; it is theirs, plain and simple. The question is whether they should be taxed on that wealth or income and how much. The argument is whether or not they should pay more than lower income earners due to their good fortune, no matter how they came about that good fortune. For some, it is through hard work, others it is through good fortune, and some it is through inheritance. I am not interested in taking their wealth away from them. However, I do believe that they have a responsibility to contribute to the overall well being of the rest of society if they intend to continue earning and reaping the benefits that such a society has given them.
And no, being the job creators is not enough. They still should pay taxes and a reasonable amount. On another note, not all wealthy people are job creators. Many job creators become wealthy, but that does not mean that all wealthy people are job creators. Many just sock their money away in fairly safe investments and live off the earnings. I don't have a problem with that either, but they should pay a fair share of the tax burden, and their fair share is much greater than a minimum wage worker.
"Fairly safe investments". You mean, like large, stable companies that employ and provide job security for lots and lots of workers? THOSE sorts of fairly safe investments?
Bottom line: wealthy people are ALL job providers in one way or another, unless they've got their money stored in their mattresses.
And listening to people talk about "fair shares" gives me the willies, because it always seems to mean "We're going to punish you for not being a pitiful wage slave like we are".
Yeah, too bad those jobs are in China, and their money stored in stocks not doing anything for the economy.
"Fairly safe investments". You mean, like large, stable companies that employ and provide job security for lots and lots of workers? THOSE sorts of fairly safe investments?
Bottom line: wealthy people are ALL job providers in one way or another, unless they've got their money stored in their mattresses.
And listening to people talk about "fair shares" gives me the willies, because it always seems to mean "We're going to punish you for not being a pitiful wage slave like we are".
Yeah, too bad those jobs are in China, and their money stored in stocks not doing anything for the economy.
Yeah, all the jobs are in China. No one works in the United States. We're all unemployed.
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?
Link
It's for damn sure you didn't earn their income. Get over it.
Yeah, too bad those jobs are in China, and their money stored in stocks not doing anything for the economy.
Yeah, all the jobs are in China. No one works in the United States. We're all unemployed.
No, we are talking about the rich here C, not the small business guy who is getting fucked over by corporate lobbyists paid by the "Rich."
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Don't forget "inheritance". Republicans call that "the good old fashioned way".
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?
Link
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?
Link
Since when is investment income "unearned"? When I have to make budget decisions in my job, apparently I am not earning my income.
Investments are certainly earned income - the investor decides which investments to make, makes them, shoulders the risk, etc.. Without those investments, a lot of folks would lose their jobs.
Since when is investment income "unearned"? When I have to make budget decisions in my job, apparently I am not earning my income.
Investments are certainly earned income - the investor decides which investments to make, makes them, shoulders the risk, etc.. Without those investments, a lot of folks would lose their jobs.
According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.
Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.
In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.
Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?
Link
Most of my income comes from how I have invested my money over the years. Currently, 80% of my income is unearned.
As usual, Warren Buffett has put his finger on the fact that the distribution of wealth in America, more often than not, excludes those who have made the greatest contributions to society...... I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.”
- Warren Buffett, (Buffett Says ‘Capricious’ Economy Requires Charity (Update1) by Hugh Son, Bloomberg, June 16, 2010 16:17 EDT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
