Do the rich earn their income?

[MikeK]

Why is it any of your ******* biznez how someone spends or obtained their money?? I don't recall anyone naming you king of America?! I'm so sick of people like you and your obsession with other people's money. GET A ******* LIFE and mind your own damn business.

Do you believe that women who work for an hourly wage should be paid the same hourly rate as their male co-workers who do the same job?

What kind of a dumbazz question is that and what does equal pay have to do with leftist dirtbags being obsessed with other people's money??

I think you know what the equal pay analogy has to do with being concerned with "other peoples' money," which is why you are diverting from the question rather than answering it.

Here's another analogy:

Keepers at NYC's Bronx Zoo have installed plexiglas barriers beyond the bars of some cages in the primate exhibit because the monkeys there are known to defecate into their hands and throw it when something upsets them. The monkeys do this when they are frustrated because all that a monkey in a cage can do when he doesn't like something is throw shit.

Ignorance and stupidity are metaphorical cages. Personal insults and empty ad hominem comments are analogous to handfuls of shit to be tossed out in place of intelligent, reasoned, logical arguments.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Interest is "unearned'?.........Capital Gains is "unearned"?

There's lot of equivocation in this thread around the term 'unearned'. The goal seems to be to establish investment income as 'undeserved', or income that is generated without providing any benefit to society. I think I've shown how that position is incorrect, but various technical definitions do (depending on the context) label investment income as 'unearned'.

We should probably avoid the obviously overloaded terms and simply say what we mean. To me, the relevant question is, do investors provide a genuine service to society? Or are they just on the gravy train, getting income purely by virtue of existing wealth?

Yes, investors do provide a genuine service to society......Investing helps drive the economy. And if they make money along the way, good for them!

And if they decide not to reinvest and sit on their money and earn ineterest on it, good for them. It's their money. They earned it, they can do as they please.

 

[Sundial]

dblack... The rich don't necessarily make less by letting others do their investing. In fact, that's one of the selling points, that they can make more...

As far as the earned/unearned thing, it references whether you produced anything of value in exchange for the income.

"Unearned" is not the same as illegal or immoral. Some people may think it is, but that's not what I'm arguing.

 

[dblack]

dblack... The rich don't necessarily make less by letting others do their investing. In fact, that's one of the selling points, that they can make more...

They make less on any given trade or investment since they have to pay whomever they hire to help them invest. Choosing a good investment advisor will net them higher returns (and provide the economy with better service) which is the whole point.

As far as the earned/unearned thing, it references whether you produced anything of value in exchange for the income.

And didn't we agree the resource allocation was indeed a service of value?

"Unearned" is not the same as illegal or immoral. Some people may think it is, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Right, that's not what you've argued. What you've argued is that the rich consume without working, essentially discounting the function of resource allocation. Which, as I've pointed out, is not a trivial matter. No economy can function without it.

In any case, I think I agree with you to the extent that established wealth in the current legal setting enjoys a stacked deck. As you pointed out previously, they profit when they invest wisely, but they also profit (or at least don't lose nearly as much as they should) when they don't. And that's where things are broken. That's what we need to change. The old saw that the rich make their money off the backs of the working poor just doesn't make sense. It may inspire uncritical anger, but it's not a valid criticism of capitalism and it doesn't get to the heart of our current problems.

 

[gslack]

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

Your contention is that using their money to make money is not earning their money... Seriously? Well then close the banks and wall street. Thats how they function... Jesus dude..LOL

 

[Sundial]

dblack... The rich don't necessarily make less by letting others do their investing. In fact, that's one of the selling points, that they can make more...

They make less on any given trade or investment since they have to pay whomever they hire to help them invest. Choosing a good investment advisor will net them higher returns (and provide the economy with better service) which is the whole point.

As far as the earned/unearned thing, it references whether you produced anything of value in exchange for the income.

And didn't we agree the resource allocation was indeed a service of value?

"Unearned" is not the same as illegal or immoral. Some people may think it is, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Right, that's not what you've argued. What you've argued is that the rich consume without working, essentially discounting the function of resource allocation. Which, as I've pointed out, is not a trivial matter. No economy can function without it.

I'm arguing it's mostly not the rich who're doing the resource allocating. It's managers, vice-presidents, advisers, CEOs, etc. In other words, the people they hire to do it for them are the ones who are doing it.

I understand you to be saying that the rich are contributing by deciding which hedge fund to invest in, or which financial adviser to hire.

I would argue that their income comes mostly from owning things, not from settling on a particular adviser.

Finally, I'd also argue that there is not a clear and necessary connection between increasing the wealth of the wealthy, and increasing the prosperity of the country as a whole; and that hedge funds are trying to do the first, and not the second; and that it is possible to make yourself or your client rich(er) at the expense of everyone else.

In any case, I think I agree with you to the extent that established wealth in the current legal setting enjoys a stacked deck. As you pointed out previously, they profit when they invest wisely, but they also profit (or at least don't lose nearly as much as they should) when they don't. And that's where things are broken. That's what we need to change. The old saw that the rich make their money off the backs of the working poor just doesn't make sense. It may inspire uncritical anger, but it's not a valid criticism of capitalism and it doesn't get to the heart of our current problems.

Suppose there's an island where 100 people work and three guys own the land. What does their ownership contribute to production?

If they get 30% of everything, where does that 30% come from?

 

[Steelplate]

Interest is "unearned'?.........Capital Gains is "unearned"?

There's lot of equivocation in this thread around the term 'unearned'. The goal seems to be to establish investment income as 'undeserved', or income that is generated without providing any benefit to society. I think I've shown how that position is incorrect, but various technical definitions do (depending on the context) label investment income as 'unearned'.

We should probably avoid the obviously overloaded terms and simply say what we mean. To me, the relevant question is, do investors provide a genuine service to society? Or are they just on the gravy train, getting income purely by virtue of existing wealth?

Yes, investors do provide a genuine service to society......Investing helps drive the economy. And if they make money along the way, good for them!

And if they decide not to reinvest and sit on their money and earn ineterest on it, good for them. It's their money. They earned it, they can do as they please.

No... WORKERS drive the consumer driven economy.... Supply side economics(trickle down) was YOUR SIDE'S Idea. Now that Big Money has decided NOT to trickle down... you defend them. You want to be Reagan worshipers? Then stand by your man.

That's how the whole thing is supposed to work... you give Business breaks, they respond in kind and supply decent paying jobs and we all prosper to one extent or another.... Tell me, IS THAT WHAT'S happening? **** no. Grow the **** up and realize you ARE being railroaded... by the same people you are defending.

 

[dblack]

I'm arguing it's mostly not the rich who're doing the resource allocating. It's managers, vice-presidents, advisers, CEOs, etc. In other words, the people they hire to do it for them are the ones who are doing it.

I understand you to be saying that the rich are contributing by deciding which hedge fund to invest in, or which financial adviser to hire.

I would argue that their income comes mostly from owning things, not from settling on a particular adviser.

Finally, I'd also argue that there is not a clear and necessary connection between increasing the wealth of the wealthy, and increasing the prosperity of the country as a whole; and that hedge funds are trying to do the first, and not the second; and that it is possible to make yourself or your client rich(er) at the expense of everyone else.

And I'm asking you to look a little closer, because the connection is very real. It's not about 'increasing the wealth of the wealthy', as you phrased it, but it is about increasing the wealth of investors who make good decisions, and decreasing the wealth of those who don't. That has a vital impact on the prosperity of the country.

Suppose there's an island where 100 people work and three guys own the land. What does their ownership contribute to production?

If they get 30% of everything, where does that 30% come from?

You've mentioned that you believe the rich get most of their income from 'owning' things, and I'd actually agree with that. But what does 'owning' something really mean? Ownership is about control. If you own something, you have the final say in how it gets used, right?

So, in your example, the 'guys' who own the land would be deciding what is done with that land. Let's say one of them decides it would be a good idea to grow tobacco and he convinces some of the other people on the island to help him plant and harvest the tobacco (perhaps by offering them partial ownership of the end product). Another decides to plant rice, and persuades some of the other islanders to join him in the effort. The third guy can't be bothered. He just hangs out on the beach, partying with his friends.

Hopefully you get the point of my clumsy allegory: The decisions these guys make will affect the future prosperity of the island. That's what their 'ownership' contributes to production.

Your contention seems to be that there is no justification for pure 'profit' - at least not the kind that comes from investment. You write off investment profits as income from 'owning things' - as though that's inconsequential. But owning something IS an activity. It entails the responsibility to decide how the things you own are used. Those kinds of decisions, especially at the scale of capital investment, have a tremendous effect on all of us. It's crucial that they're made well.

 

[gslack]

I'm arguing it's mostly not the rich who're doing the resource allocating. It's managers, vice-presidents, advisers, CEOs, etc. In other words, the people they hire to do it for them are the ones who are doing it.

I understand you to be saying that the rich are contributing by deciding which hedge fund to invest in, or which financial adviser to hire.

I would argue that their income comes mostly from owning things, not from settling on a particular adviser.

Finally, I'd also argue that there is not a clear and necessary connection between increasing the wealth of the wealthy, and increasing the prosperity of the country as a whole; and that hedge funds are trying to do the first, and not the second; and that it is possible to make yourself or your client rich(er) at the expense of everyone else.

And I'm asking you to look a little closer, because the connection is very real. It's not about 'increasing the wealth of the wealthy', as you phrased it, but it is about increasing the wealth of investors who make good decisions, and decreasing the wealth of those who don't. That has a vital impact on the prosperity of the country.

Suppose there's an island where 100 people work and three guys own the land. What does their ownership contribute to production?

If they get 30% of everything, where does that 30% come from?

You've mentioned that you believe the rich get most of their income from 'owning' things, and I'd actually agree with that. But what does 'owning' something really mean? Ownership is about control. If you own something, you have the final say in how it gets used, right?

So, in your example, the 'guys' who own the land would be deciding what is done with that land. Let's say one of them decides it would be a good idea to grow tobacco and he convinces some of the other people on the island to help him plant and harvest the tobacco (perhaps by offering them partial ownership of the end product). Another decides to plant rice, and persuades some of the other islanders to join him in the effort. The third guy can't be bothered. He just hangs out on the beach, partying with his friends.

Hopefully you get the point of my clumsy allegory: The decisions these guys make will affect the future prosperity of the island. That's what their 'ownership' contributes to production.

Your contention seems to be that there is no justification for pure 'profit' - at least not the kind that comes from investment. You write off investment profits as income from 'owning things' - as though that's inconsequential. But owning something IS an activity. It entails the responsibility to decide how the things you own are used. Those kinds of decisions, especially at the scale of capital investment, have a tremendous effect on all of us. It's crucial that they're made well.

WAIT A MINUTE!

You just started another thread claiming debt was a good thing, and here you are claiming people who use money and wealth to make more money and wealth are not earning their money and wealth.

SERIOUSLY???

Dude, I don't know if you are just unable to grasp that your arguments contradict one another or you are just blindly posting nonsense for effect and attention.. Which is it?

DEBT is the very essence of using money to create money. Jesus man, wake up...

 

[Sundial]

I'm arguing it's mostly not the rich who're doing the resource allocating. It's managers, vice-presidents, advisers, CEOs, etc. In other words, the people they hire to do it for them are the ones who are doing it.

I understand you to be saying that the rich are contributing by deciding which hedge fund to invest in, or which financial adviser to hire.

I would argue that their income comes mostly from owning things, not from settling on a particular adviser.

Finally, I'd also argue that there is not a clear and necessary connection between increasing the wealth of the wealthy, and increasing the prosperity of the country as a whole; and that hedge funds are trying to do the first, and not the second; and that it is possible to make yourself or your client rich(er) at the expense of everyone else.

And I'm asking you to look a little closer, because the connection is very real. It's not about 'increasing the wealth of the wealthy', as you phrased it, but it is about increasing the wealth of investors who make good decisions, and decreasing the wealth of those who don't. That has a vital impact on the prosperity of the country.

Suppose there's an island where 100 people work and three guys own the land. What does their ownership contribute to production?

If they get 30% of everything, where does that 30% come from?

You've mentioned that you believe the rich get most of their income from 'owning' things, and I'd actually agree with that. But what does 'owning' something really mean? Ownership is about control. If you own something, you have the final say in how it gets used, right?

So, in your example, the 'guys' who own the land would be deciding what is done with that land. Let's say one of them decides it would be a good idea to grow tobacco and he convinces some of the other people on the island to help him plant and harvest the tobacco (perhaps by offering them partial ownership of the end product). Another decides to plant rice, and persuades some of the other islanders to join him in the effort. The third guy can't be bothered. He just hangs out on the beach, partying with his friends.

Hopefully you get the point of my clumsy allegory: The decisions these guys make will affect the future prosperity of the island. That's what their 'ownership' contributes to production.

Your contention seems to be that there is no justification for pure 'profit' - at least not the kind that comes from investment. You write off investment profits as income from 'owning things' - as though that's inconsequential. But owning something IS an activity. It entails the responsibility to decide how the things you own are used. Those kinds of decisions, especially at the scale of capital investment, have a tremendous effect on all of us. It's crucial that they're made well.

WAIT A MINUTE!

You just started another thread claiming debt was a good thing, and here you are claiming people who use money and wealth to make more money and wealth are not earning their money and wealth.

SERIOUSLY???

Dude, I don't know if you are just unable to grasp that your arguments contradict one another or you are just blindly posting nonsense for effect and attention.. Which is it?

DEBT is the very essence of using money to create money. Jesus man, wake up...

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

 

[JWBooth]

What difference does it make?

 

[dblack]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

You seem to be arguing that they get richer 'merely by existing'. But that doesn't hold up. If they don't do something useful with their money, if all they do is hangout on the beach, they won't get richer. They might be able to coast on their cash for a while, but if all they do is spend or hoard their money, their wealth will eventually be depleted.

 

[gslack]

And I'm asking you to look a little closer, because the connection is very real. It's not about 'increasing the wealth of the wealthy', as you phrased it, but it is about increasing the wealth of investors who make good decisions, and decreasing the wealth of those who don't. That has a vital impact on the prosperity of the country.



You've mentioned that you believe the rich get most of their income from 'owning' things, and I'd actually agree with that. But what does 'owning' something really mean? Ownership is about control. If you own something, you have the final say in how it gets used, right?

So, in your example, the 'guys' who own the land would be deciding what is done with that land. Let's say one of them decides it would be a good idea to grow tobacco and he convinces some of the other people on the island to help him plant and harvest the tobacco (perhaps by offering them partial ownership of the end product). Another decides to plant rice, and persuades some of the other islanders to join him in the effort. The third guy can't be bothered. He just hangs out on the beach, partying with his friends.

Hopefully you get the point of my clumsy allegory: The decisions these guys make will affect the future prosperity of the island. That's what their 'ownership' contributes to production.

Your contention seems to be that there is no justification for pure 'profit' - at least not the kind that comes from investment. You write off investment profits as income from 'owning things' - as though that's inconsequential. But owning something IS an activity. It entails the responsibility to decide how the things you own are used. Those kinds of decisions, especially at the scale of capital investment, have a tremendous effect on all of us. It's crucial that they're made well.

WAIT A MINUTE!

You just started another thread claiming debt was a good thing, and here you are claiming people who use money and wealth to make more money and wealth are not earning their money and wealth.

SERIOUSLY???

Dude, I don't know if you are just unable to grasp that your arguments contradict one another or you are just blindly posting nonsense for effect and attention.. Which is it?

DEBT is the very essence of using money to create money. Jesus man, wake up...

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

WTF kind of a cop-out lame excuse was that? They don't get money for existing. The use of their money (ies) earns more money for them in its use by banks, investments, etc... Dude you just argued that debt is good in one thread and somehow the rich don't earn their money in this one. And you do not see a conflict in the two??

One more time...

Wealthy people do the largest investing. Investing in banks, businesses, stocks, bonds, you name it. That is what generates wealth not only for them but other people as well. Want or need a car loan? Then rich people have to be investing into banks or it won't be easy for you to get it cause there is no large monies available that people will risk on you to borrow. Understand this yet?

Money made from these investments they either reinvest back into something or place into CD's, savings accounts, retirement accounts, trust funds, charities, non-profits and any other account or institution. Monies into accounts is used by banks to add to their monies to loan out to you for your car loan...

Without those rich people using their money to make money you wouldn't be able to get a loan. Its as simple as that...

 

[Sundial]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

You seem to be arguing that they get richer 'merely by existing'. But that doesn't hold up. If they don't do something useful with their money, if all they do is hangout on the beach, they won't get richer. They might be able to coast on their cash for a while, but if all they do is spend or hoard their money, their wealth will eventually be depleted.

If the rich hire someone else to manage their wealth, they can get richer without trying. Whether they're on the beach, or someone else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

What do you consider "work?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the rich hire someone else to manage their wealth, they can get richer without trying. Whether they're on the beach, or someone else.

Then why don't you hire someone else to manage your wealth? Then you can be rich too? i mean, it takes no effort at all, according to you. Even if you have only $5, these magic people will double your wealth every day - soon you'll be the next George Soros, pulling the ladder of success up and pouring fire down on the little people.

Actually, why don't these magic people make themselves rich, instead of creating unearned wealth for the evil rich who do nothing except pull the wings off of kittens all day?

 

[Wicked Jester]

There's lot of equivocation in this thread around the term 'unearned'. The goal seems to be to establish investment income as 'undeserved', or income that is generated without providing any benefit to society. I think I've shown how that position is incorrect, but various technical definitions do (depending on the context) label investment income as 'unearned'.

We should probably avoid the obviously overloaded terms and simply say what we mean. To me, the relevant question is, do investors provide a genuine service to society? Or are they just on the gravy train, getting income purely by virtue of existing wealth?

Yes, investors do provide a genuine service to society......Investing helps drive the economy. And if they make money along the way, good for them!

And if they decide not to reinvest and sit on their money and earn ineterest on it, good for them. It's their money. They earned it, they can do as they please.

No... WORKERS drive the consumer driven economy.... Supply side economics(trickle down) was YOUR SIDE'S Idea. Now that Big Money has decided NOT to trickle down... you defend them. You want to be Reagan worshipers? Then stand by your man.

That's how the whole thing is supposed to work... you give Business breaks, they respond in kind and supply decent paying jobs and we all prosper to one extent or another.... Tell me, IS THAT WHAT'S happening? **** no. Grow the **** up and realize you ARE being railroaded... by the same people you are defending.

Notice how I said, "investing helps drive the economy".............It's a component that helps drive it. And that's a damn fact.

Seriously, do yourself a favor, hire someone to manage your money for you.......You're obviously as economically illiterate as the current President.

 

[dblack]

If the rich hire someone else to manage their wealth, they can get richer without trying. Whether they're on the beach, or someone else.

Without trying? You ever try to hire someone, or choose a contractor, or delegate any of your responsibilities effectively 'without trying'? If they choose well and hire someone good, they'd probably have some spare time to lie on the beach and still turn a profit. But then, they'd have to pay that person, and the better they are, the more they'll charge.

If they don't do that, if they don't figure out a way to put their money to good use, it's a wash and they lose their money. In any case, it's their decision on what to do with that money - invest it themselves, hire someone to do it on their behalf, blow it all on hookers and blow - and, if they have a lot of money, it makes a big difference.

Are you really denying this? How do you think things would work out if there was little or no incentive for people to invest money in this way? How would resource allocation get done? Who would waste their time carefully investing their money, who would bother finding someone to do it for them, if there was no profit in it?

 

[asterism]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

You seem to be arguing that they get richer 'merely by existing'. But that doesn't hold up. If they don't do something useful with their money, if all they do is hangout on the beach, they won't get richer. They might be able to coast on their cash for a while, but if all they do is spend or hoard their money, their wealth will eventually be depleted.

If the rich hire someone else to manage their wealth, they can get richer without trying. Whether they're on the beach, or someone else.

The operative word is "can." Many get poorer, some get wiped out completely.

The reason they (and anyone actually) has the opportunity to possibly get rich is because they take risks. Sometimes those risks pay off. Most of the time they don't. Risk vs. reward, and that helps everyone.

 

[gslack]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

You seem to be arguing that they get richer 'merely by existing'. But that doesn't hold up. If they don't do something useful with their money, if all they do is hangout on the beach, they won't get richer. They might be able to coast on their cash for a while, but if all they do is spend or hoard their money, their wealth will eventually be depleted.

If the rich hire someone else to manage their wealth, they can get richer without trying. Whether they're on the beach, or someone else.

And again they pay someone else to turn their money into more money, which gives work to the guy they hire and his people or business will prosper because of it. And their money is invested into things which AGAIN generate even more money for ever more people. The taxes they pay for these things are what allow things like welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid to function, as well as education, and other governmental services.

They work by taking the risks, and making sure they make money from their money. Your arguments show a lack of understanding that reminds me of konradv..

You can avoid my posts as much as you like but they are still there and your lack of response to them shows how little you can defend your claims on this...