Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!

[alan1]

Again, can you back up this claim?

That would be your claim, not mine.

MM. Come on. You made a claim about how charity had helped more than government. Can you back it up?

Lets take a return to earlier in the thread.
You posted,

Take it up with 5,000 years of history. Talk about a whiner!

A government is an organizing principle. I don't know what you guys propose as an alternative, but the fact is, governments have long provided some sort of aid to the poor. I mean for the last few thousand years, at least. As a nod to the aforementioned fact that life is not fair.

I replied with,

Hey, they haven't done it nearly as long as freely given charity has, nor nearly as effectively.

Prove that government has been charitable longer or more effective if that is your claim.

 

[Sunshine]

"Charity" has likely not been consistent enough to make poor people dependent on any one source. But after working in the projects for a few years, and seeing that enironment of generational poveryt and dependence, I don't think the governement has done them any favors either.

 

[Wiseacre]

"Charity" has likely not been consistent enough to make poor people dependent on any one source. But after working in the projects for a few years, and seeing that enironment of generational poveryt and dependence, I don't think the governement has done them any favors either.

No, the gov't hasn't. The fraud, waste, and abuse are terrible, I just don't trust gov't to do a reasonable job spending our money.

 

[SAT2]

How much slower would you like me to go for you???

It's not for my benefit.

You made a claim that government helped more than charity, can you back it up?

Please review the thread.

Reagan didn't control the congress...They're the ones who do the spending...Did you flunk Civics 101?

Congress Did Not Cause Reagan's Debt

I don't give a flying fuck as to whether you *believe* that the Great Society and Medicare have been good for the country...The point and fact of the matter is that they, along with the Vietnam war, are largely responsible for the lion's share of the federal debt that brought about the exorbitant inflation and interest rates of the 70s and early 80s.

Please calm down.

Medicare and the Great Society have been good for the economic growth of the nation.

If you think that 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates are worth all the promises of unicorns, fairies and free lunches of the Great Society, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought...And that's saying something.

Lunch is not like a fairy or a unicorn. Please come to earth.

 

[dblack]

The OP hinges on the conflation between the terms "unearned" and "undeserved". "Unearned" is a technical term classifying a certain kind of income and it's misleadingly named. it doesn't mean "money for nothing". It doesn't mean that those collecting said income exerted no effort or that they provided no service in exchange for their profits.

All "unearned income" means in the context of the report cited is money that comes from sources other than wages or salary.

 

[Oddball]

I don't give a flying fuck as to whether you *believe* that the Great Society and Medicare have been good for the country...The point and fact of the matter is that they, along with the Vietnam war, are largely responsible for the lion's share of the federal debt that brought about the exorbitant inflation and interest rates of the 70s and early 80s.

Please calm down.

Medicare and the Great Society have been good for the economic growth of the nation.

I am calm, and you are completely and willfully ignorant...Medicare and the Great Society, along with the cost of the Vietnam war (all unfunded), were directly responsible for the outrageous inflation and interest rates of the 70s and 80s...This is an historical fact that you cannot refute....If you can call that good for the economic growth of the nation, I want in on the dope you've been smoking.

If you think that 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates are worth all the promises of unicorns, fairies and free lunches of the Great Society, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought...And that's saying something.

Lunch is not like a fairy or a unicorn. Please come to earth.

Free lunch is like a fairy or a unicorn...Please pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Wiseacre]

The OP hinges on the conflation between the terms "unearned" and "undeserved". "Unearned" is a technical term classifying a certain kind of income and it misleading named. it doesn't mean "money for nothing". It doesn't mean that those collecting said income exerted no effort or that the provided no service in exchange for their profits.

All "unearned income" means in the context of the report cited is money that comes from sources other than wages or salary.

Good point. I suspect most Americans get more incensed about rich people who have 'undeserved' income over those who have earned it. I don't hear a lot of outrage about Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs, or even Warren Buffet, even though those guys are billionaires. Maybe most people think they earned their money in some fashion, even if most of their wealth came from investments rather than what most people might consider productive work. It was odd, the OWSers held vigils for Steve Jobs when he died, yet was he not the epitome of a rich capitalist?

 

[dblack]

The OP hinges on the conflation between the terms "unearned" and "undeserved". "Unearned" is a technical term classifying a certain kind of income and it misleading named. it doesn't mean "money for nothing". It doesn't mean that those collecting said income exerted no effort or that the provided no service in exchange for their profits.

All "unearned income" means in the context of the report cited is money that comes from sources other than wages or salary.

Good point. I suspect most Americans get more incensed about rich people who have 'undeserved' income over those who have earned it. I don't hear a lot of outrage about Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs, or even Warren Buffet, even though those guys are billionaires. Maybe most people think they earned their money in some fashion, even if most of their wealth came from investments rather than what most people might consider productive work. It was odd, the OWSers held vigils for Steve Jobs when he died, yet was he not the epitome of a rich capitalist?

I think the dispute is whether or not people deserve to earn money "merely" from wise resource allocation (investment).

 

[MeBelle]

How much slower would you like me to go for you???

It's not for my benefit.

It most certainly is.

You made a claim that government helped more than charity, can you back it up?

Please review the thread.
Congress Did Not Cause Reagan's Debt

I don't give a flying fuck as to whether you *believe* that the Great Society and Medicare have been good for the country...The point and fact of the matter is that they, along with the Vietnam war, are largely responsible for the lion's share of the federal debt that brought about the exorbitant inflation and interest rates of the 70s and early 80s.

Please calm down.

Medicare and the Great Society have been good for the economic growth of the nation.

If you think that 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates are worth all the promises of unicorns, fairies and free lunches of the Great Society, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought...And that's saying something.

Lunch is not like a fairy or a unicorn. Please come to earth.

Deflection and projecting make for a failed argument. Happy Friday!

 

[Oddball]

I think the dispute is whether or not people deserve to earn money "merely" from wise resource allocation (investment).

I'm certain that it is.

I'm also certain that the opinion that someone else deserves those resources more so than the person who made the investment (i.e. took the risk), more so than the investor who earned the resources put at risk, is suffering from delusions ranging from the annoyingly neurotic to the malevolently psychotic....Seems the only greed that they're blind to is their own.

 

[yidnar]

The IRS report for the richest 400 Americans shows that only 6.5% of their income came from wages and salaries. The rest - 93.5% - came from unearned income. "Unearned income" is the profits that accrue to the rich by virtue of their ownership of things. When corporate profits, for example, go up, the wealth of the rich increases.

The rich themselves do not create those profits, though. The profits are mostly created by the people who work at the corporations - the profit "creators", so to speak. The rich benefit from the hard work of others, but they mostly don't participate - not unless they feel like, anyway.

Link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf

the person that opens a factory has more money than the workers do !!! but the employee gets an honest paycheck !! you don't mind it when the government sucks up and wastes people money !!! you would rather government take money than a person that is smarter and harder working than you !!!

 

[daveman]

The IRS report for the richest 400 Americans shows that only 6.5% of their income came from wages and salaries. The rest - 93.5% - came from unearned income. "Unearned income" is the profits that accrue to the rich by virtue of their ownership of things. When corporate profits, for example, go up, the wealth of the rich increases.

The rich themselves do not create those profits, though. The profits are mostly created by the people who work at the corporations - the profit "creators", so to speak. The rich benefit from the hard work of others, but they mostly don't participate - not unless they feel like, anyway.

Link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf

Your greedy and selfish need to buy stuff is leading to the rich getting richer.

You're perpetuating the problem. Boycott buying stuff!

 

[bripat9643]

The IRS report for the richest 400 Americans shows that only 6.5% of their income came from wages and salaries. The rest - 93.5% - came from unearned income. "Unearned income" is the profits that accrue to the rich by virtue of their ownership of things. When corporate profits, for example, go up, the wealth of the rich increases.

The rich themselves do not create those profits, though. The profits are mostly created by the people who work at the corporations - the profit "creators", so to speak. The rich benefit from the hard work of others, but they mostly don't participate - not unless they feel like, anyway.

Link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf

The ignorant grunts who provide nothing but brute labor do not create profits. Your belief that they do shows you don't even understand what profit is. The mass of mediocre men benefit far more from the existence of first rate men of talent and ability than the other way around. How much did Thomas Edison benefit from the invention of the light bulb? Possible he earned a few million dollars. On the other hand, billions of people continue to benefit from his creation. The amount Edison earned is a small fraction of the wealth he created for humanity. The same goes for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, etc., etc., etc..

 

[Sundial]

The OP hinges on the conflation between the terms "unearned" and "undeserved". "Unearned" is a technical term classifying a certain kind of income and it's misleadingly named. it doesn't mean "money for nothing". It doesn't mean that those collecting said income exerted no effort or that they provided no service in exchange for their profits.

All "unearned income" means in the context of the report cited is money that comes from sources other than wages or salary.

Unearned income is income obtained other than by employment. Self-employed people have earned income. Alimony, child-support, welfare, and dividends are examples of unearned income. Whether income is "deserved" is a different matter.

 

[dblack]

The OP hinges on the conflation between the terms "unearned" and "undeserved". "Unearned" is a technical term classifying a certain kind of income and it's misleadingly named. it doesn't mean "money for nothing". It doesn't mean that those collecting said income exerted no effort or that they provided no service in exchange for their profits.

All "unearned income" means in the context of the report cited is money that comes from sources other than wages or salary.

Unearned income is income obtained other than by employment. Self-employed people have earned income. Alimony, child-support, welfare, and dividends are examples of unearned income. Whether income is "deserved" is a different matter.

Not really. The whole point of these kinds of arguments, and claims the profits aren't created by investors, but rather "leached off the backs of labor", is to imply injustice and suggest that profits are "undeserved".

 

[Sundial]

The OP hinges on the conflation between the terms "unearned" and "undeserved". "Unearned" is a technical term classifying a certain kind of income and it misleading named. it doesn't mean "money for nothing". It doesn't mean that those collecting said income exerted no effort or that the provided no service in exchange for their profits.

All "unearned income" means in the context of the report cited is money that comes from sources other than wages or salary.

Good point. I suspect most Americans get more incensed about rich people who have 'undeserved' income over those who have earned it. I don't hear a lot of outrage about Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs, or even Warren Buffet, even though those guys are billionaires. Maybe most people think they earned their money in some fashion, even if most of their wealth came from investments rather than what most people might consider productive work. It was odd, the OWSers held vigils for Steve Jobs when he died, yet was he not the epitome of a rich capitalist?

I think the dispute is whether or not people deserve to earn money "merely" from wise resource allocation (investment).

I'm not concerned with determining whether somebody "deserves" their income, so much as with exposing a particularly obnoxious lie - that working people live off the largesse of the rich. The truth is that everybody lives off of the goods and services produced by working people - not just the poor and dispossessed, but the rich as well.

 

[Sundial]

The IRS report for the richest 400 Americans shows that only 6.5% of their income came from wages and salaries. The rest - 93.5% - came from unearned income. "Unearned income" is the profits that accrue to the rich by virtue of their ownership of things. When corporate profits, for example, go up, the wealth of the rich increases.

The rich themselves do not create those profits, though. The profits are mostly created by the people who work at the corporations - the profit "creators", so to speak. The rich benefit from the hard work of others, but they mostly don't participate - not unless they feel like, anyway.

Link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf

The ignorant grunts who provide nothing but brute labor do not create profits. Your belief that they do shows you don't even understand what profit is. The mass of mediocre men benefit far more from the existence of first rate men of talent and ability than the other way around. How much did Thomas Edison benefit from the invention of the light bulb? Possible he earned a few million dollars. On the other hand, billions of people continue to benefit from his creation. The amount Edison earned is a small fraction of the wealth he created for humanity. The same goes for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, etc., etc., etc..

Edison did work. His income, however, depended not on the value of the work that he did, but on government laws that either did or did not force other people to pay him for copying what he did.

The income that someone has may be the same as the value of his contribution. It may be less - as you yourself assert. Or it may be more.

Separating humanity onto two groups - the "ignorant grunts" and the "first rate men of talent" is ignorant. You should recognize that there are rich ignorant grunts, and first rate men of talent who are poor.

 

[Article 15]

Find me an economists that states that income inequality is good in a capitalistic society.
You'll have a very hard time, unless you can find some biased tool.
Over 70% of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. Our economy is having a very tough time recovering from the last recession because consumers aren't spending!

Graph 1, represents the working classes share of the National Income.
Graph 2, represents the very sharp divide of income and increase of the income gap in the US.
Will someone explain how the US consumer driven economy is going to fully recover when a huge majority of the consumer class is losing expendable income to participate in the US economy because of flat wage growth that is falling behind inflation?

People calling this "class envy" have drank too much Kool-Aid based on that tired old claim. of "class envy". It's a fact that the working class has dramatically lost it's share of the National Income. It's also a fact that the National Income has grown. One would think that the working class would at least stay even regarding their share of the National Income but it hasn't. And because the working class isn't happy about it,,it's "class envy". Some people are really naive.
The working class is supposed to be good little workers and just be happy that they have been factually losing out in the US economy. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Word

 

[Article 15]

Now I understand your point.
Yer whining because you didn't win the sperm lottery of being born rich.

No. You don't understand his point at all. The above certainly is NOT it.

It's quite revealing that every time a liberal posts something about social injustice and/or economic inequity, conservatives respond by treating it as if it were a personal -- as opposed to moral -- complaint.

What that says to me is that conservatives are for the most part selfish, self-centered, narcissistic people with no sense of civic responsibility whatsoever, and because of this that's the only way they can interpret anyone else's arguments. The consistent misunderstanding says a lot more about you than it does about us.

Yup

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's sort of the point. The people who work - the profit creators - have jobs. They work. The rich, on the other hand - the profit takers - don't work. At least, not unless they feel like it.

Like most middle income Americans, I have a job. I work. The richest of the rich, on the other hand, mostly don't. They consume.

There are steps you can take so that your children win that lottery.

You've got to win it first.