Do the rich earn their income?

[Cecilie1200]

No, it's an impossibility for everyone to get rich, if only because there will always be Negative Nellies who would rather sit around and complain about everyone else.

We're already all rich.

We live lives that Henry the VIII would have killed a dozen more wives to have lived. Our welfare recipients have luxuries that Julius Cesar never dreamed, air conditioned houses, refrigerated foods, microwaves, cellphones and cars. Foods from around the world are within miles of our homes

We are all filthy rich - many of us are just too spoiled to grasp the fact.

We're all very fortunate in this country. It's one of the reasons I feel blessed.

Of course, some people are more fortunate than others. And it's weird how sometimes the most privileged are least willing to express gratitude for what they have. Or to admit to being fortunate.

I've never quite had the word for it. It's worse than ingratitude. It's more like spitting in the face of fate.

Ahh, another vague, unfounded assertion. "Sometimes the most privileged are the least willing to express gratitude". Is that a fact? Then you won't mind proving it, because I KNOW you don't think anyone in here is going to take your word for anything at this point.

Is it just that those damned rich people have the gall to think they worked hard for and earned what they have, and refuse to kiss the left's ass and funnel all their money into social programs to "give back" because society "gave" it all to them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's some people I know (of):

Samual Israel: $450 million, 20 years
Marc Dreier: $700 million, 20 years
Kenneth Lay: $1 billion, died before trial
Scott Rothstein: $1 billion, pending
Richard Scrushy: $2.87 billion, six years and 10 months
Tom Petters: $3.65 billion, pending
Allen Stanford: $7 billion, pending
Jérôme Kerviel: $7.36 billion, pending
Bernie Ebbers: $11 billion, 25 years
Bernie Madoff: $65 billion, 150 years

Behind every great fortune there is a great crime.
--Honore de Balzac

Oh oh, can I play this game too? Kids cause jail too!

Julia Prince: 3 children, 12 years.
Amber Taylor: 4 children, 22 years
Andrea Yates: 5 children, death penalty

A mother who is really a mother is never free.
--Honore de Balzac

Is mine as irrelevant and meaningless as yours?

Mike

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

as for your point, well, I have no idea what you thought the point was.

I like how you found a quote by Balzac, though.

No, the POINT is that a tiny handful of people defraud and cheat others, and YOU want to insist that ALL rich people are like that.

If you know a lot of frauds and cheats, when the rest of us only know decent, hard-working people . . . well, that just brings to mind the old cliche of "birds of a feather", doesn't it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Ahh, another vague, unfounded assertion. "Sometimes the most privileged are the least willing to express gratitude". Is that a fact? Then you won't mind proving it, because I KNOW you don't think anyone in here is going to take your word for anything at this point.

Is it just that those damned rich people have the gall to think they worked hard for and earned what they have, and refuse to kiss the left's ass and funnel all their money into social programs to "give back" because society "gave" it all to them?

The only one vague here is you. I know a few rich people who haven't worked a day in their god damned lives. Also those who have got rich off the backs of others while doing little or nothing themselves.

And, no, not everybody can be rich. If everybody earned the same income there would be hyer inflation...

 

[Liability]

Oh oh, can I play this game too? Kids cause jail too!

Julia Prince: 3 children, 12 years.
Amber Taylor: 4 children, 22 years
Andrea Yates: 5 children, death penalty

A mother who is really a mother is never free.
--Honore de Balzac

Is mine as irrelevant and meaningless as yours?

Mike

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

as for your point, well, I have no idea what you thought the point was.

I like how you found a quote by Balzac, though.

No, the POINT is that a tiny handful of people defraud and cheat others, and YOU want to insist that ALL rich people are like that.

If you know a lot of frauds and cheats, when the rest of us only know decent, hard-working people . . . well, that just brings to mind the old cliche of "birds of a feather", doesn't it?

Game set match, Cecilie1200!

Sundial soundly defeated.

It was almost painful to see Sundial make such a fool of himself. Of cours,e Cecile did help Sundial make a fool of Sundial.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

as for your point, well, I have no idea what you thought the point was.

I like how you found a quote by Balzac, though.

No, the POINT is that a tiny handful of people defraud and cheat others, and YOU want to insist that ALL rich people are like that.

If you know a lot of frauds and cheats, when the rest of us only know decent, hard-working people . . . well, that just brings to mind the old cliche of "birds of a feather", doesn't it?

Game set match, Cecilie1200!

Sundial soundly defeated.

It was almost painful to see Sundial make such a fool of himself. Of cours,e Cecile did help Sundial make a fool of Sundial.

Sadly, it doesn't really require more help than to just let him and his kind keep talking.

 

[Sundial]

Charles, Sundial is insinuating that the rich do not do any work, and that is why everyone cannot be rich (because that would mean nobody is doing work).

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Charles, Sundial is insinuating that the rich do not do any work, and that is why everyone cannot be rich (because that would mean nobody is doing work).

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

See what I mean, Liability? Let him run his gums long enough, and all manner of foolishness just spills out, like sewage from a drainage culvert.

 

[Sundial]

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

Sure they do. And we should do everything in our power to put a stop to it. But that's a dodge. Your original point was the notion that investment income is 'unearned', that it involves no work, and provides no value. Are you backing off on that stance?

No. But my original point was that most of the income of the super-rich is unearned, and unearned income is income you don't have to work to get.

I agree with you that an active investor is doing work (which may or may not have any social value). But I countered that the fact that it is work is why there's an industry devoted to doing it - so the rich don't have to.

The other thing was just a response to "My friend got rich through hard work and sacrifice." I don't doubt some people get rich that way. But plenty of others don't.

 

[ShackledNation]

Charles, Sundial is insinuating that the rich do not do any work, and that is why everyone cannot be rich (because that would mean nobody is doing work).

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

 

[dblack]

I agree with you that an active investor is doing work (which may or may not have any social value). But I countered that the fact that it is work is why there's an industry devoted to doing it - so the rich don't have to.

They have to decide what to do with their money. There's no way around that. If they put it to good use, they'll profit, if they don't, they'll lose it. Which part of that eludes you?

 

[Sundial]

Charles, Sundial is insinuating that the rich do not do any work, and that is why everyone cannot be rich (because that would mean nobody is doing work).

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Sooooooooooooo, all those who do the work for the rich, are poor.

This is getting to be some funny shit........You're all over the place, dude.

Now, please give us your idea of "rich" and "wealthy" by numbers........Since you claim the "rich" are not "wealthy", what are your guidelines as far money in the bank, hard assets, etc.

 

[Sundial]

I agree with you that an active investor is doing work (which may or may not have any social value). But I countered that the fact that it is work is why there's an industry devoted to doing it - so the rich don't have to.

They have to decide what to do with their money. There's no way around that. If they put it to good use, they'll profit, if they don't, they'll lose it. Which part of that eludes you?

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

 

[ShackledNation]

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages. And by the way, the rich work, or at least worked to get rich.

 

[ShackledNation]

I agree with you that an active investor is doing work (which may or may not have any social value). But I countered that the fact that it is work is why there's an industry devoted to doing it - so the rich don't have to.

They have to decide what to do with their money. There's no way around that. If they put it to good use, they'll profit, if they don't, they'll lose it. Which part of that eludes you?

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

Investors, acting in their own self interest, will be forced to invest in industries that will benefit everyone else, for it is those industries that will be successful and earn them more profit. Without the rich acting as investors, you cannot fund these industries. The poor get no work, and are even poorer. You act like this is some zero-sum game. Workers benefit from their employers by obtaining a salary. Employers benefit from workers by obtaining their services. I am not sure if your immeasurable ignorance of reality is amusing or frightful.

 

[Colin]

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

I suspect you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. You're just covering up your overwhelming jealousy of those who are better off than yourself!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Sooooooooooooo, all those who do the work for the rich, are poor.

This is getting to be some funny shit........You're all over the place, dude.

Now, please give us your idea of "rich" and "wealthy" by numbers........Since you claim the "rich" are not "wealthy", what are your guidelines as far money in the bank, hard assets, etc.

obama is one of the 1 percenters along with most of Congress. The top 6 members combined net worth is over 2 trillion dollars.

 

[editec]

The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Some apodictic truth is just worth repeating.
Sundial just gave us an example of that.

The point is that if all the weathy vanished, there'd be rich people again soon enough. Of that I have no doubt. Cream rises to the top. undoubtably.


But if all the poor people vanished?

The survivors would have to create some more poor STAT if they wanted to continue being rich.

The source of all human wealth is human physical labor and and human intellectual labor, folks.

Sorry bout the space between lines. No idea why this is happening

 

[dblack]

...Which part of that eludes you?

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

So, all of it then?

Listen, I've been over all this stuff multiple times. Yet each time you ostrich up and continue with the platitudes. If you really don't get it (and want to), you should do some reading and learn how capital investment works as a mechanism of resource allocation in a free economy. It's not really all that complicated.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

So what you're saying is that if the rich had to work, then they would have to work?

Tautologies are not an indication of brilliance except among liberals.

I can't imagine any claim more utterly moronic than that rich people don't work.