Why the rich owe their fortunes to luck as much as to anything else

[Some Guy]

You can't simultaneously maintain that the wealthy took risks to become wealthy and that luck had nothing to do with it, those are mutually exclusive positions to take.

For one, "luck" can't really be clearly defined. The fact that K-Mart has pretty much been buried by Wal-Mart really doesn't have anything to do with luck: it had to do with offering a superior value to the consumer. You could say the same about DR-DOS vs. MS-DOS when IBM was developing computers for in-home use.

There's a saying: luck is simply when opportunity meets preparation. Working hard to build something pretty much covers the "preparation" part.

But you're straying away from what the OP is saying: success = luck. Let's say i mine and sell rock salt. I'm busting my ass to expand my customer base, get my brand out there and increase production capacity. You might call a massive blizzard "luck", but really, it's just preparation meeting opportunity (and demand). Not just anyone is going to be able suddenly work hard selling road salt cause i've busted my ass to establish connections and production capacity.

If the OP had his way, I would be taxed much more heavily because it was "luck", completely ignoring the work it took to be in a position to capitalize on said luck. And let's not pretend that all successful businesses and people have never had their share of bad luck either.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Mind boggling.

 

[Toro]

There is EVERYTHING wrong with people having to give up most of thier income, regardless of how much they make, in taxes.

If you want other people's money, do the honorable thing and rob them. Dont make the government do it for you.

i've never heard people say take "most" of other people's money...

The OP did.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes there is.

If you are about to make a big business deal and an earthquake hits and smashes the whole deal to bits - you had bad luck.

The decision being made to host the meeting in San Francisco, not knowing that the tectonic plates had reached the limit of strain, not having the info in hand that the building you are in could not handle a magnitude 7 in the rain when 30 MPH winds were hitting the south side of the building etc... there are endless amounts of information.. that does not mean there is the existence of a force called luck that rewards or punishes based on nothing but random chance... it means you do not have all the information on all the factors... and you made a decision without all the information.. but the process was already in motion

Once again - I'm not talking about divine luck.

Does not mean divinity... but there is all the information you need out there.. whether you do get it or can get it is the key.. there are reactions to everything... it is not pure chance, rather it is a decision made on incomplete information were the process is already in motion from other factors... and whether your decision has direct impact on the outcome or is just in the way of the reaction of events in motion does not equate to luck.. it merely equates to the result of your actions in the same time and space with the results of other actions, whether you see the interaction or not... Luck is a concoction of the weak

 

[DiamondDave]

There is EVERYTHING wrong with people having to give up most of thier income, regardless of how much they make, in taxes.

If you want other people's money, do the honorable thing and rob them. Dont make the government do it for you.

i've never heard people say take "most" of other people's money...

The OP did.

Bingo

 

[Toro]

The concept is really simple -- most people get rich becuase they love what they do for a living. And they are good at it. And, as chance would have it, the things they like to do are in demand by others -- so they also are getting paid well.

Many other people have no such luck. They like to do things that others do not find all that valuable. Or they don't possess enough talents to compete with those who do. Those people have to work hard to earn a basic living and the money is the main thing that motivates them to work.

That is why the rich are so fortunate. And that is why asking them to pay higher taxes is only fair. Also that is why higher taxes would not discourage them from working -- remember, they are not providing their services just for money!

I believe that a society should reward people primary for their efforts -- and much less the end result, as the productivity can change dramatically between the different lines of work. The society should encourage higher productivity as well by allowing some inequality -- by letting people take home many times the average salary.

But there is nothing wrong if people making millions would have to give up most of their income in taxes.

The uber-wealthy make most of their money off of the market which is mostly luck.

No it's not.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe.

 

[bripat9643]

The OP's premise is that after say 5x to 10x the average salary, everything else should go to the government.

That's a stupid premise. What has the government done that entitles it to the bulk of someone's wages? Taxes should cover the cost of essential government services. They are not a device for righting the wrongs that chance or mother nature dishes out. That idea is fundamentally totalitarian.

 

[bripat9643]

It would be their money if they would earn them in an inhabited island, or in lawless jungles. Then they would owe nothing to any one else.

But that is not the case. The rich got their income because the way our society is set up, because many other people follow its rules and make right decisions every day. The rich owe to those people.

No one owes anyone anything, unless there is a contractural relationship between them.

But there is a contractual relationship already -- it says that the rich must pay most of taxes in this country. We should change is so they pay a bit more.

There is no such contract, turd. That's commie propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

But there is a contractual relationship already -- it says that the rich must pay most of taxes in this country. We should change is so they pay a bit more.

You are not asking for a bit more, you are asking for all of it.

There is no reason to become hysterical here. A 70% marginal rate on incomes above 500K is hardly "all of it".

ROFL! I find that utterly hysterical. What possible moral principle could possibly justify taking 70% of what someone has earned?

 

[bripat9643]

The concept is really simple -- most people get rich becuase they love what they do for a living. And they are good at it. And, as chance would have it, the things they like to do are in demand by others -- so they also are getting paid well.

Many other people have no such luck. They like to do things that others do not find all that valuable. Or they don't possess enough talents to compete with those who do. Those people have to work hard to earn a basic living and the money is the main thing that motivates them to work.

That is why the rich are so fortunate. And that is why asking them to pay higher taxes is only fair. Also that is why higher taxes would not discourage them from working -- remember, they are not providing their services just for money!

I believe that a society should reward people primary for their efforts -- and much less the end result, as the productivity can change dramatically between the different lines of work. The society should encourage higher productivity as well by allowing some inequality -- by letting people take home many times the average salary.

But there is nothing wrong if people making millions would have to give up most of their income in taxes.

The premise here is bull shit. No discussion can follow from it.

It's hard to argue the obvious, isn't it?

It's only "obvious" to morons. It's hard to argue the obviously wrong.

 

[DiamondDave]

You are not asking for a bit more, you are asking for all of it.

There is no reason to become hysterical here. A 70% marginal rate on incomes above 500K is hardly "all of it".

ROFL! I find that utterly hysterical. What possible moral principle could possibly justify taking 70% of what someone has earned?

The immoral principle of greed

 

[bripat9643]

But there is a contractual relationship already -- it says that the rich must pay most of taxes in this country. We should change is so they pay a bit more.

Really?? Can you show me a copy of it and tell me who SIGNED it?

It is called the tax code, and it is signed by people's representatives. Ever heard of democracy?

When did I agree to the tax code?

 

[KissMy]

The uber-wealthy make most of their money off of the market which is mostly luck.

It's not luck. The Wallstreet Casino Game is rigged & you are nothing but a Muppet.

Time: How Wall Street Rigs the Game

But whose money are we talking about here? There is a misconception that Wall Street is composed of rich people gambling with other rich people’s money, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. The secret that Wall Street doesn’t want anyone to know is that hedge funds comprise less than 5% of assets in the stock market. The real big players in the market are individual households and the pension funds, mutual funds, university endowments, charities and foundations that are entrusted with your savings, donations, retirement funds and 401(k)s. They are the owners of trillions and trillions of dollars invested with Wall Street banks. So, in effect, you are the big player in the market. And when a Wall Street bank overcharges a teacher’s retirement fund or a charity on a complex product, or misprices the Facebook IPO, causing billions of dollars of wealth destruction, or helps the governments of Greece and Italy cover up their debt, or rigs interest rates affecting trillions of dollars of loans, it ultimately affects you directly and comes out of your pocket.

But how does Wall Street make so much money anyway? Surely there are times when it must lose? Actually, not as often as you might think. Consider this: There are certain quarters when a Wall Street bank makes money every single day of that quarter in its trading business. Yes: 90 days in a row. One hundred percent of the time, it generates a profit. Bank of America has pulled off this amazing feat. That is like batting 1.000. A perfect record. How is this even possible?

Two words: asymmetric information. The playing field is not even. The bank can see what every investor in the marketplace is doing and therefore knows more than everyone else. If the casino could always see your cards and sometimes even decide what cards to give you, would you expect it ever to lose?

Here’s how it happens: Because Wall Street is facilitating business for the smartest hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and corporations in the world, it knows who is on every side of countless trades. It can effectively see everyone’s cards. Therefore, it can bet smarter with its own money. Worse, if Wall Street can persuade you to trade a custom-made and impossible-to-understand structured product that serves the firm’s needs, it is as if your cards have been predetermined. There is little risk that the casino will lose in this scenario.

Also consider where the gambling takes place. In a real casino, it is on a casino floor with cameras all over the place. Even if you don’t like Las Vegas gambling, it is regulated. On Wall Street, by contrast, the gambling can be moved to a darkened room where nothing is recorded, observed or tracked. With opaque unregulated derivatives, there are no cameras. In this smoke-filled room, there is maximum temptation to try to exploit unsophisticated investors and conflicts of interest. And this temptation and lack of transparency are what led to the global financial crisis in 2008.

Finally, think about the dealer. Your banker might seem objective — like a friendly casino dealer who jokes around and is on your side — but there are times when he or she might be trying to steer you toward the thing that makes the casino the most money. If you were playing blackjack and you had 19, would the dealer ever tell you to hit? Sometimes, on Wall Street, he urges you to take another card.

With all these advantages, how can Wall Street ever lose? Even real casinos don’t make money every single day of the quarter.

 

[Oddball]

The concept is really simple -- most people get rich becuase they love what they do for a living. And they are good at it. And, as chance would have it, the things they like to do are in demand by others -- so they also are getting paid well.

Many other people have no such luck. They like to do things that others do not find all that valuable. Or they don't possess enough talents to compete with those who do. Those people have to work hard to earn a basic living and the money is the main thing that motivates them to work.

That is why the rich are so fortunate. And that is why asking them to pay higher taxes is only fair. Also that is why higher taxes would not discourage them from working -- remember, they are not providing their services just for money!

I believe that a society should reward people primary for their efforts -- and much less the end result, as the productivity can change dramatically between the different lines of work. The society should encourage higher productivity as well by allowing some inequality -- by letting people take home many times the average salary.

But there is nothing wrong if people making millions would have to give up most of their income in taxes.

Right...They're lucky...So that makes it much easier on your conscience for you to rationalize looting them.

What am I talking about?...You socialist thugs have no conscience.

 

[Oddball]

Really?? Can you show me a copy of it and tell me who SIGNED it?

It is called the tax code, and it is signed by people's representatives. Ever heard of democracy?

When did I agree to the tax code?

When you were born...You're chattel property of the state, comrade.

 

[Misty]

Omg shut up. Who cares if one is lucky or works their ass off to become rich, why are you entitled to their money?

Give me some of your money. Millions of dollars of your money. No? Why don't have it. Well if you did you would have to give it to me.

The rich pay millions in taxes. The rich support the greedy government.

So shut the fuck up. Seriously you are a dick.

 

[ilia25]

Omg shut up. Who cares if one is lucky or works their ass off to become rich, why are you entitled to their money?

Post No 6

 

[Paulie]

The concept is really simple -- most people get rich becuase they love what they do for a living. And they are good at it. And, as chance would have it, the things they like to do are in demand by others -- so they also are getting paid well.

Many other people have no such luck. They like to do things that others do not find all that valuable. Or they don't possess enough talents to compete with those who do. Those people have to work hard to earn a basic living and the money is the main thing that motivates them to work.

That is why the rich are so fortunate. And that is why asking them to pay higher taxes is only fair. Also that is why higher taxes would not discourage them from working -- remember, they are not providing their services just for money!

I believe that a society should reward people primary for their efforts -- and much less the end result, as the productivity can change dramatically between the different lines of work. The society should encourage higher productivity as well by allowing some inequality -- by letting people take home many times the average salary.

But there is nothing wrong if people making millions would have to give up most of their income in taxes.

This is your case? Really? This might be the worst case ever laid out for why the rich should pay more.

 

[Paulie]

But there is a contractual relationship already -- it says that the rich must pay most of taxes in this country. We should change is so they pay a bit more.

You are not asking for a bit more, you are asking for all of it.

There is no reason to become hysterical here. A 70% marginal rate on incomes above 500K is hardly "all of it".

Do you have any idea how hard most people have to work and how much they have to risk and sacrifice to make an income of 500k?

Why would anyone work hard like that again if 70% of it is going to be taken from them?