Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!

[dblack]

Capital doesn't do work.

Yes it does. If you invest your capital it works for you and brings in interst. My teachers in high school used to always be saying things like, 'I could work a lot harder, but I prefer to invest some of my money and let my MONEY work for me.'

THAT is what has gone over your head like a 747!

Can you give me an example of money doing work?

It's not the money itself that does the work. It's the owner of the money. Investors decide how they're money should be used. They can piss it away on something useless (and likely lose their investment), or put it into something a lot of other people find valuable, in which case they'll likely make a profit.

 

[Sundial]

Yes it does. If you invest your capital it works for you and brings in interst. My teachers in high school used to always be saying things like, 'I could work a lot harder, but I prefer to invest some of my money and let my MONEY work for me.'

THAT is what has gone over your head like a 747!

Can you give me an example of money doing work?

It's not the money itself that does the work. It's the owner of the money. Investors decide how they're money should be used. They can piss it away on something useless (and likely lose their investment), or put it into something a lot of other people find valuable, in which case they'll likely make a profit.

perhaps. Or they might put it in a money market fund, or a mutual fund, or some other form of passive investment. In which case they may go on collecting interest or dividends without making any further decisions whatsoever. Or maybe they'll work one day a year - the day they decide to keep their money in ABC mutual fund rather than switching to XYZ.

Or they could go bankrupt a few times, get lucky, star in a reality TV show, and babble about running for president.

 

[Crackerjack]

Capital doesn't do work.

Yes it does. If you invest your capital it works for you and brings in interst. My teachers in high school used to always be saying things like, 'I could work a lot harder, but I prefer to invest some of my money and let my MONEY work for me.'

THAT is what has gone over your head like a 747!

Can you give me an example of money doing work?

Interest. Google it.

 

[daveman]

Capital doesn't do work.

There is no work without capital...unless you dig working for free.

Suppose there are two people: a baker who needs a chair and a carpenter who needs bread. They can make an exchange, and trade one for the other. Or they can create tokens of exchange. With the tokens, they don't have to carry bread and chairs around in order to buy things.

So yeah, money is helpful.

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

Really? The baker and carpenter don't do anything with the money they get in exchange for their goods and services? They don't buy from suppliers and pay their creditors?

Really?

 

[Sundial]

There is no work without capital...unless you dig working for free.

Suppose there are two people: a baker who needs a chair and a carpenter who needs bread. They can make an exchange, and trade one for the other. Or they can create tokens of exchange. With the tokens, they don't have to carry bread and chairs around in order to buy things.

So yeah, money is helpful.

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

Really? The baker and carpenter don't do anything with the money they get in exchange for their goods and services? They don't buy from suppliers and pay their creditors?

Really?

I'm not sure what your point is - or if you even have one. Of course people use money to buy and sell good and services to each other. That was the point of my example.

Money is a good and useful thing, because it makes transactions easier. But money is created by government, not by rich people. Rich people don't literally "make" money. They accumulate it.

Rich people don't give money its value, either. The value of money is created in what money can buy - by the work done by working people.

Since they have the good fortune of living better than everyone else, while working less - or not at all - wouldn't it make sense for them to pay most of the taxes? Or even all of them?

Of course that's not how it is now. But isn't that how it should be?

 

[daveman]

Suppose there are two people: a baker who needs a chair and a carpenter who needs bread. They can make an exchange, and trade one for the other. Or they can create tokens of exchange. With the tokens, they don't have to carry bread and chairs around in order to buy things.

So yeah, money is helpful.

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

Really? The baker and carpenter don't do anything with the money they get in exchange for their goods and services? They don't buy from suppliers and pay their creditors?

Really?

I'm not sure what your point is - or if you even have one. Of course people use money to buy and sell good and services to each other. That was the point of my example.

Money is a good and useful thing, because it makes transactions easier. But money is created by government, not by rich people. Rich people don't literally "make" money. They accumulate it.

Yes, the government prints money. No, the government does not create wealth.

Rich people don't give money its value, either. The value of money is created in what money can buy - by the work done by working people.

Since they have the good fortune of living better than everyone else, while working less - or not at all - wouldn't it make sense for them to pay most of the taxes? Or even all of them?

Of course that's not how it is now. But isn't that how it should be?

Your post makes Lenin smile.

However, out here in the real world, some people pay more to the government in taxes than they receive in government spending.

And some pay far less.

Source.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

how perfectly Stalinist liberal! Without Jobs and Gates there would be no jobs for workers to do. When is the last time you got a job from a worker?

Did you want to steal companies from Jobs and Gates and then run them just for the workers? A Stalinist liberal would think that possible.

 

[Sundial]

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

how perfectly Stalinist liberal! Without Jobs and Gates there would be no jobs for workers to do. When is the last time you got a job from a worker?

Did you want to steal companies from Jobs and Gates and then run them just for the workers? A Stalinist liberal would think that possible.

Without rich people there'd be no jobs?

Of course there would be. Regular people need to eat, and drive, and live in houses too. The only difference is that regular people would live in bigger houses, and drive nicer cars, if they didn't have to support the leisure of the idle rich.

 

[daveman]

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

how perfectly Stalinist liberal! Without Jobs and Gates there would be no jobs for workers to do. When is the last time you got a job from a worker?

Did you want to steal companies from Jobs and Gates and then run them just for the workers? A Stalinist liberal would think that possible.

Without rich people there'd be no jobs?

Of course there would be. Regular people need to eat, and drive, and live in houses too. The only difference is that regular people would live in bigger houses, and drive nicer cars, if they didn't have to support the leisure of the idle rich.

People getting rich does not make other people poorer. This is leftist nonsense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

how perfectly Stalinist liberal! Without Jobs and Gates there would be no jobs for workers to do. When is the last time you got a job from a worker?

Did you want to steal companies from Jobs and Gates and then run them just for the workers? A Stalinist liberal would think that possible.

Without rich people there'd be no jobs?

Of course there would be. Regular people need to eat, and drive, and live in houses too. The only difference is that regular people would live in bigger houses, and drive nicer cars, if they didn't have to support the leisure of the idle rich.

where would the regular people get jobs if folks like Jobs and Gates didn't invent things for them to make? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[Sundial]

Really? The baker and carpenter don't do anything with the money they get in exchange for their goods and services? They don't buy from suppliers and pay their creditors?

Really?

I'm not sure what your point is - or if you even have one. Of course people use money to buy and sell good and services to each other. That was the point of my example.

Money is a good and useful thing, because it makes transactions easier. But money is created by government, not by rich people. Rich people don't literally "make" money. They accumulate it.

Yes, the government prints money. No, the government does not create wealth.

Rich people don't give money its value, either. The value of money is created in what money can buy - by the work done by working people.

Since they have the good fortune of living better than everyone else, while working less - or not at all - wouldn't it make sense for them to pay most of the taxes? Or even all of them?

Of course that's not how it is now. But isn't that how it should be?

Your post makes Lenin smile.

However, out here in the real world, some people pay more to the government in taxes than they receive in government spending.

And some pay far less.

Source.

Really? The bottom 20% get $24,000 each from the government?

That's amazing, since their MAXIMUM income is only $23,000.

Anyway, the truth is the rich don't pay enough taxes.

An average middle-class taxpayer where I live pays about 10% in property taxes - $5000 on a $200,000 home. If he's self-employed (I am) he pays 15% in payroll taxes. That's 25%.

Someone who lives in a million dollar home, on the other hand, and has $10 million in capital gains, pays 0.25% property taxes, and 0% in payroll taxes.

On top of that, he pays less in sales taxes - unless he manages to spend every dime of the $10 million - and his capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income!

How is that fair?

 

[Sundial]

how perfectly Stalinist liberal! Without Jobs and Gates there would be no jobs for workers to do. When is the last time you got a job from a worker?

Did you want to steal companies from Jobs and Gates and then run them just for the workers? A Stalinist liberal would think that possible.

Without rich people there'd be no jobs?

Of course there would be. Regular people need to eat, and drive, and live in houses too. The only difference is that regular people would live in bigger houses, and drive nicer cars, if they didn't have to support the leisure of the idle rich.

where would the regular people get jobs if folks like Jobs and Gates didn't invent things for them to make? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?

Your question presupposes someone's argued no one should invent anything.

No one's made that argument. What you're doing is called a straw man argument. You've created a ridiculous position, assigned it to me, and then attacked me for it.

 

[Sundial]

how perfectly Stalinist liberal! Without Jobs and Gates there would be no jobs for workers to do. When is the last time you got a job from a worker?

Did you want to steal companies from Jobs and Gates and then run them just for the workers? A Stalinist liberal would think that possible.

Without rich people there'd be no jobs?

Of course there would be. Regular people need to eat, and drive, and live in houses too. The only difference is that regular people would live in bigger houses, and drive nicer cars, if they didn't have to support the leisure of the idle rich.

People getting rich does not make other people poorer. This is leftist nonsense.

Where do rich people get their money from?

A. Other people.
B. The government.
C. The printing press in the basement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your question presupposes someone's argued no one should invent anything. No one's made that argument. What you're doing is called a straw man argument. You've created a ridiculous position, assigned it to me, and then attacked me for it.

so then why be so afraid to tell us how your system with the rich would work?????

 

[DSGE]

Without rich people there'd be no jobs?

Of course there would be. Regular people need to eat, and drive, and live in houses too. The only difference is that regular people would live in bigger houses, and drive nicer cars, if they didn't have to support the leisure of the idle rich.

People getting rich does not make other people poorer. This is leftist nonsense.

Where do rich people get their money from?

A. Other people.
B. The government.
C. The printing press in the basement.

What? So the government taxes a bunch of people and gives that money to others to make them rich...?

 

[Sundial]

Your question presupposes someone's argued no one should invent anything. No one's made that argument. What you're doing is called a straw man argument. You've created a ridiculous position, assigned it to me, and then attacked me for it.

so then why be so afraid to tell us how your system with the rich would work?????

In the old days, 100% of the income tax was paid by the top 1%.

Why not eliminate income taxes for the other 99%?

There'd still be property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. But at least the income tax would be paid by the people with the biggest incomes.

 

[DSGE]

Your question presupposes someone's argued no one should invent anything. No one's made that argument. What you're doing is called a straw man argument. You've created a ridiculous position, assigned it to me, and then attacked me for it.

so then why be so afraid to tell us how your system with the rich would work?????

In the old days, 100% of the income tax was paid by the top 1%.

Why not eliminate income taxes for the other 99%?

There'd still be property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. But at least the income tax would be paid by the people with the biggest incomes.

What do you mean "at least"? All that does is change where the money gets taken from them. "Back in the old days" most of the government revenues came from import/export tariffs and government spending was only around 12% of GDP. If you want to return to that level, you could dramatically lower the tax burden. Eliminating income tax for the 99% just means that the same amount will have to be raised through more distortionary taxes, involving a greater welfare loss.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In the old days, 100% of the income tax was paid by the top 1%.

that of course is liberal and mistaken! in the 1920s the rich paid about 60% of taxes

Why not eliminate income taxes for the other 99%?

1) then they have no incentive to vote for efficient government, only welfare for themselves.

2) It destroyes character and community and the desire to get rich in the first place

3) then the rich, the people who grow the economy, have less to make the economy and jobs grow.

There'd still be property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. But at least the income tax would be paid by the people with the biggest incomes.

now the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes. This is horrendous waste since goverment wastes money on one shot welfare payments while the rich invest it in sustainable ways to grow economy and jobs. Better to tax the poor since they waste the money on daily consumption and don't know how to invest it to contribute to society.

 

[Sundial]

In the old days, 100% of the income tax was paid by the top 1%.

that of course is liberal and mistaken! in the 1920s the rich paid about 60% of taxes

Why not eliminate income taxes for the other 99%?

1) then they have no incentive to vote for efficient government, only welfare for themselves.

2) It destroyes character and community and the desire to get rich in the first place

3) then the rich, the people who grow the economy, have less to make the economy and jobs grow.

There'd still be property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. But at least the income tax would be paid by the people with the biggest incomes.

now the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes. This is horrendous waste since goverment wastes money on one shot welfare payments while the rich invest it in sustainable ways to grow economy and jobs. Better to tax the poor since they waste the money on daily consumption and don't know how to invest it to contribute to society.

Better to "tax the poor since they waste the money on daily consumption"?

They waste the money on things like food and clothes, rather than Gucci handbags and trips to Paris?

Why is money spent on rice and beans "wasted"? Is it because of who eats it? What if they covered their rice and beans with quail sauce and ate it in Paris? Would they then be "contributing to society"?

 

[dblack]

Better to "tax the poor since they waste the money on daily consumption"?

Better to maintain equal protection of the law for all citizens. The tax code shouldn't be used for social engineering. If rich people are doing something wrong, make that 'something' a crime and punish them for it. But punishing classes of people based on some presumed wrongdoing of everyone in the group seems like bad government to me.