Whence comes wealth?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I think the origins of wealth (property, goods, holdings etc.) lies at the heart of political philosophies. I've slowly come around to questioning the propriety of anyone's wealth, including my own, such as it is, and I think this questioning is the source of my politics. To take my example, I think around 1990, I owned exactly nothing and owed people (primarily my divorce attorney) a lot of money, but two decades later, I had accumulated a decent 401K, so I certainly could claim that I earned every bit of my "wealth" by the sweat of my brow, and I ain't sharing it with no one.

But I haven't. I earned that in part by having the education I had, and I got that education in part through my parents' resources, and by the good fortune to attend an expensive college that awarded academic scholarships, advantages that everyone did not start out with. My point is that if you go back far enough, and no one can except in theory, all advantages stem from luck and force, in that most wealth stems from acts that now we would consider crimes--slave-owning, to be sure, but also from following despotic leaders, who doled out rewards, or simply taking things because one had the strength to do, or by waging war on one's neighbor's (I'm talking about caveman days here--no need to get your hackles up from the insult to your noble grandpa.) No one "deserves" his wealth, is what I'm saying, and all attempts to claim that one's wealth has been earned by oneself is kind of small-minded and self-serving, though I'm not giving up my 401K on that basis, either. I think this realization underpins my inclination to help the disadvantaged, and I also think the rejection of this understanding (if it is a violent enough rejection) underpins the philosophy of those offended by the idea of helping the disadvantaged, which is basically "Why should I?"

In a philosophical sense, do you see any merit in the argument that wealth is ultimately unearned?

[Shodan]

You're confusing earning something with owning it. If it is OK to take money from you because you didn't earn it, then robbery is not a crime.

And the notion that all wealth is the result of luck and/or force is simple nonsense.

Regards,
Shodan

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

the rejection of this understanding (if it is a violent enough rejection) underpins the philosophy of those offended by the idea of helping the disadvantaged, which is basically "Why should I?"

n.b.

[wmfellows]

It is utter nonsense to see all wealth as derived from exploitation. A great deal of the accumulated wealth of the 20th century derives not from exploitation (in either a Marxist sense or merely a neutral one) of labour, but rather scientific innovation finding more efficient means of production. That is what has driven the exponential increase in wealth globally. Not mere work in a labour sense.

Of course for any given individual there is no small measure of luck involved in their success or not.

Accumulated wealth as essentially robbery and force probably is a good description of say Rome, but not of the scientific age, in particular as war has gone from being not a bad way for a country to accumulate wealth to utterly ruinous and to be avoided if at all possible.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

In a philosophical sense, do you see any merit in the argument that wealth is ultimately unearned?

Some is. the great majority of it is not.

Most of the "wealth" in the word, in terms of the physical or monetary property owned by people, was earned through the exchange of labour for money. There's not really any convincing argument I can think of that makes that wealth unearned.

It is certainly the case that in the PAST, this was not always true. Rome has already been cited, and that's a good example; Rome's wealth was to a great extent simply stolen from other civilizations by looting their cities and enslaving their citizens.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Most of the "wealth" in the word, in terms of the physical or monetary property owned by people, was earned through the exchange of labour for money.

Cite?

You need to show that most wealth is this rather than, say, through financial markets or the ownership of physical property, which is where I believe most wealth actually originates. If the top 10% of a society has 80% of the wealth, that can't all be from wages.

[Blaster Master]

If you carry your argument all the way out, wealth doesn't even really exist. At it's most basic sense, wealth is simply possessing something that somebody else wants. Thus to that extent, all wealth was originally unearned, where one came into power or had access to resources based on luck. However, over a sufficient number of generations, that luck gets sort of spread out.

Consider slavery in the US, for instance. A significant number of people were significantly disadvantaged by that, and one could say that those who benefitted from it didn't earn it. However, generations later, while there are clearly still some effects, both the negative and positive effects have been spread out over more of the population. Moreso, many people who had some greater advantage than average from those events have squandered their unearned wealth, and many people who had greater disadvantage than average have gained wealth.

Ultimately, I think the problem is that most people seek to maximize their wealth. It's always easier to trade or coerce one's way to gaining wealth than to genuinely create more wealth. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't increase wealth, and yet wealth must continually be spread over more and more people as population increases and as generations level them out. However, those who genuinely create wealth, even if there was some initial unearned wealth invested, are still ultimately adding to the total pool of wealth, and so I would still say that wealth is earned.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Right, no one is giving up anything up today, and certainly no one is giving up all his wealth today. But there's a principle here that people either apply or choose not to apply to the poor--"There but for the grace of God, go I" (or in the case of atheists, "There but for sheer blind dumb luck, go I"). "Even if there was some initial unearned wealth invested" isn't just a throwaway line--you had some resources to begin with that you inherited, and who can say whether you could have built on that to gain your current wealth? Recognizing that marks you as one type of political, rejecting it marks as another type.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

most wealth stems from acts that now we would consider crimes--slave-owning, to be sure, but also from following despotic leaders, who doled out rewards, or simply taking things because one had the strength to do, or by waging war on one's neighbor's (I'm talking about caveman days here--no need to get your hackles up from the insult to your noble grandpa.) No one "deserves" his wealth, is what I'm saying, and all attempts to claim that one's wealth has been earned by oneself is kind of small-minded and self-serving

This kind of sounds like you're assuming a law of "Conservation of Wealth" whereby wealth is never created or destroyed, only taken or transferred from one person to another.

I don't agree that all or most of my (or anyone else's) wealth can necessarily be traced back to "crimes." But I do agree that it is largely a result of advantages that I have had, things that I have been given—by other people (such as my parents) and by nature. So that even the wealth that I have legitimately earned, my ability and opportunity to have earned it are largely thanks to the grace of God / sheer blind dumb luck. So the appropriate response to having the wealth is, it seems to me, thankfulness, and humility, and an obligation to use it, not only for my own benefit, but for that of others (a la "To whom much is given, much will be required" or "With great power comes great responsibility").

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

I don't agree that all or most of my (or anyone else's) wealth can necessarily be traced back to "crimes."

It's comforting to think so, and there's no way to prove it one or the other, so most people prefer to reject this hypothesis. But given the many generations of ancestors we all have who are completely unknown to us all, I think it's likely that some of the winners (survivors, who lived to procreate) committed some crimes (by their own standards or by ours) and we ultimately benefit from them, some of us more than others. Which is why I tend to reject the "Why should I? I earned it fair and square" argument. Odds are you or your ancestors had some advantages along the way, some which would probably horrify you, so now that we (?) are approaching civilization, it's only right to me that we level the playing field a little bit.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

It's comforting to think so, and there's no way to prove it one or the other, so most people prefer to reject this hypothesis. But given the many generations of ancestors we all have who are completely unknown to us all, I think it's likely that some of the winners (survivors, who lived to procreate) committed some crimes (by their own standards or by ours) and we ultimately benefit from them, some of us more than others. Which is why I tend to reject the "Why should I? I earned it fair and square" argument. Odds are you or your ancestors had some advantages along the way, some which would probably horrify you, so now that we (?) are approaching civilization, it's only right to me that we level the playing field a little bit.

(Bolding mine.) As long as you use the word "some," I can agree, though I have no idea what the percentage is (except that it's probably somewhere between 1% and 99%, if it can even be quantified at all).

Plus, now I'm wondering just how "tainted" (if at all) my wealth is if I obtained it honestly from A through my own efforts, who earned it honestly from B, who earned it from C, who earned it from D, who stole it from E, who stole it from F, who earned it from G...

[Little Nemo]

It is utter nonsense to see all wealth as derived from exploitation.

I agree that wealth doesn't have to be the product of exploitation. But I think we should regard wealth as a gift rather than something we earned solely through our own efforts. Even those things which we did earn were almost always the product of an earlier gift which created the opportunity for us to earn something. Nobody is self-made.

But the myth of being self-made is powerful. People want to believe they're self-made both for reasons of pride and because it relieves them of any obligation to help others.

[Bryan Ekers]

Let me put it like this: Shaq is rich, but the white man who signs his checks is wealthy.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by wmfellows

It is utter nonsense to see all wealth as derived from exploitation. A great deal of the accumulated wealth of the 20th century derives not from exploitation (in either a Marxist sense or merely a neutral one) of labour, but rather scientific innovation finding more efficient means of production.

Innovations mostly made by people who gained little from them. The people who make money from scientific innovations are seldom the people who make them. A scientist who creates some process that founds a billion dollar industry is lucky if he gets a small one time bonus to his paycheck.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

somewhere between 1% and 99%.

Right, so there's a degree to which your wealth (your existence, really) is predicated on someone somewhere doing something despicable, evil, scummy, immoral, without which you might not be here, and you would not be as well off as you are. To whatever extent I think that true, and I think it's closer to 99% true than 1% true, you're obligated as an evolved member of civilization to pay back some of the victims of that criminal behavior by recognizing the degree to which your wealth is self-generated.

What I'm trying to say is that the inability to see this argument, and the degree to which you take instantaneous offense at the concept, is the degree to which you probably oppose programs to help the disadvantaged, and feel good about that opposition.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Innovations mostly made by people who gained little from them. The people who make money from scientific innovations are seldom the people who make them. A scientist who creates some process that founds a billion dollar industry is lucky if he gets a small one time bonus to his paycheck.

Depends on who funds the research. If you hire me to develop a process, then you are entitled to ownership of the process, which is what is usually in our contract. But I can also negotiate that you pay me in royalties or in a stock futures. Most people want the money up front, though, to avoid the risk of getting nothing in the future. Here in Silicon Valley, a lot of people get part of their pay as future profits or stock ownership. That's the way I ended up with a lot of the "wealth" I created on the company's dime.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

(Bolding mine.) As long as you use the word "some," I can agree, though I have no idea what the percentage is (except that it's probably somewhere between 1% and 99%, if it can even be quantified at all).

Plus, now I'm wondering just how "tainted" (if at all) my wealth is if I obtained it honestly from A through my own efforts, who earned it honestly from B, who earned it from C, who earned it from D, who stole it from E, who stole it from F, who earned it from G...

To follow this line of reasoning A would be as wealthy as G. However in the last 120 years we as a country are 10 times as rich as we were then. If wealth was stolen, rather than created than wealth could not grow. Yet the cavemen had all the natural resources we do now, but were inestimably poorer.
The difference in wealth is added productivity. There is no wealth without productivity. Each person receives the marginal productivity they create. No one can create much on their own but each person's marginal productivity is different. Technology has created so much of an increase in marginal productivity that almost all of the wealth accumulated by individuals is a result of their own talent and efforts and not on wealth stolen from individuals in the past.

[Lemur866]

Of course any individual human's wealth isn't completely earned. Even a guy living by himself stranded on a desert island completely naked was fed, sheltered and educated by his parents as a child. Absent that parental care, every human would die, because human infants are unable to care for themselves.

And so even a guy who gets kicked out of his parent's house at 18 with the shirt on his back has accumulated over his lifetime a vast store of unearned wealth. 18 years of food and shelter and clothing and public schooling required to bring a person to adulthood is an enormous effort by both parents and society.

And of course, we don't abandon 18 year old kids naked onto desert islands either. Even a kid who lives in Somalia lives in a functioning community of sorts that's a lot easier to survive in than a desert island would be. A kid who grows up in America has a much larger store of unearned wealth than a kid who grows up in Somalia.

So a self-made millionaire's fortune, like Henry Ford's, required the efforts of millions of people in the past who created the science and engineering and infrastructure and government that allowed Henry Ford to put together his first factory. Henry Ford on his own on a desert island would be lucky to build a grass hut. Henry Ford in a neolithic village would be able to create more. Henry Ford in a medieval manor would be able to do even more. Henry Ford in an orbiting space habitat in 2357 would be able to accomplish even more.

Did the baby born in the space habitat in 2357 earn his place there? Of course not, neither did the baby born in a neolithic village, and neither did the baby whose parents were eaten by sabertooths and who died a few days later after producing nothing except poop and pee and spitup.

So does that mean, since humans don't create themselves fully formed from the ether, that since no one earns his own life through his own efforts, that everything a person owns, even his own life, was stolen from others? No of course not, because what did those other people do to deserve their lives? Does it mean the hubris of a Randian superhero is misplaced? Yes, because that superhero was fed and sheltered and educated as a child, and lives in a society where his excess labor isn't stolen by gangs of men on horseback.

We don't live under the feudal system anymore, and so we aren't serfs whose excess labor is accumulated by the mafioso who lives in the castle. But we didn't earn our non-slave status, it was earned for us by people in the past.

So what next? Does this mean that communal ownership is the only sensible response to this information? That since we didn't earn our lives by our own efforts, everything we accomplish should not belong to us but rather to everyone else? But this doesn't follow, because even though we didn't earn living in America in the 21st century, neither did anyone else earn what we produce. If your wealth is unearned, that doesn't mean someone else earned it and you stole it. If you want to produce of loaf of bread yourself without any help it would be literally impossible, because wheat itself was discovered and developed by nameless farmers over thousands of years. Yes, you could plant wheat seeds and harvest them and grind them and knead them and bake them and produce a loaf of bread. But you haven't done it all by yourself.

But then, buying a loaf of bread made by a professional baker for a trivial amount of money doesn't mean that you've somehow stolen the equivalent amount of effort that would be required to produce that loaf of bread yourself. The baker's professional oven wasn't stolen either, neither was the bakery's delivery truck, neither were the baker's shoes or his house. It would take literally years of effort for one person to make from raw materials one pencil that you can buy for a dime at a discount store. You wouldn't just make the pencil, you'd have to make all the tools needed to make the pencil, and the tools required to make them.

But of course, this accumulation of wealth whereby we can buy a pencil or a loaf of bread for a trivial effort on our part doesn't mean we've stolen that effort. And just because it is certain that many of our ancestors throughout history were murderers and thieves (go back 20 generations and you've got 2^20 ancestors) that doesn't mean you've directly benefitted from their murder and thievery. The fact that your great-great-great grandfather was a murderer and survived to produce a child doesn't mean that you owe your life to murder.

So the end result is that we should all have a little humility, and be glad we were lucky enough to survive childhood diseases and be fed and educated by our parents instead of starving to death in the gutter. Heck, our neighbors adopted a child who was living on the streets in Thailand. Nobody knows what happened to her parents, or how she ended up in Thailand because she's ethnically south indian, not Thai. She apparently had a sister at one point but no one knows what happened to her sister. It could easily be that her sister is dead, or is a slave somewhere. Does that mean, that since my neighbor's adopted daughter didn't earn this adoption into a middle-class American family that she stole that life from someone else? It's incoherent to say that this girl doesn't deserve the life she has, that she doesn't deserve to even be alive just because other kids in her position are now dead or still in that position.

[hdc_bst]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

The difference in wealth is added productivity. There is no wealth without productivity. Each person receives the marginal productivity they create. No one can create much on their own but each person's marginal productivity is different. Technology has created so much of an increase in marginal productivity that almost all of the wealth accumulated by individuals is a result of their own talent and efforts and not on wealth stolen from individuals in the past.

Although you didn't address it, I think that you'd agree that another source of wealth is natural resources - unlocking or harvesting additional resources can create wealth.

I might not be fully tracking on marginal productivity, because I think that there's a missing element. Would it be fair to rephrase 'each person receives the marginal productivity they create' as 'to each person's productivity creates wealth which is distributed to the parties involved.'? An employer typically gains a portion of an employees marginal productivity in accordance with their negotiated agreement (this is why they employ the individual). In some cases an employee may receive more compensation than the value of their productivity (slackers skating by, etc.).

As another side thought, certain activities can destroy wealth. I don't think price fluctuations are an indication of this, they're simply reassessing the wealth inherent in your home/stock/whatever based on additional information. However, burning that gallon of gas, eating that food, letting that food spoil, or losing your home to a tornado are instances of destroyed wealth (if the gas is burned to productive purpose, there may be a net gain).

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Let me put it like this: Shaq is rich, but the white man who signs his checks is wealthy.

Thank you, Chris Rock... But what's the relevance of that comment to this thread?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Shodan

You're confusing earning something with owning it. If it is OK to take money from you because you didn't earn it, then robbery is not a crime.

And the notion that all wealth is the result of luck and/or force is simple nonsense.

Regards,
Shodan

I don't know about that. The market took all kinds of wealth from me in 2000-2001. That wasn't robbery. People who lost money on their homes weren't robbed. For my stock, I earned the money which bought it at 15, I didn't earn the increase in value to 100. And I didn't earn the money I got from cashing some of it out before the crash either (not enough.)

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

Technology has created so much of an increase in marginal productivity that almost all of the wealth accumulated by individuals is a result of their own talent and efforts and not on wealth stolen from individuals in the past.

Say create, not accumulate. I've been investing long enough that a very big chunk of the money in my retirement accounts is not earned, even counting the matching as earned. The still significant amount of equity in my house from the increase in price from 1996 (even after the crash) isn't earned either. And I can't claim to have earned my investment dollars from labor or intelligence, except the intelligence of getting a good investment advisor and listening to him.
You could say Bill Gates earned every penny. I doubt you can say that about some early Microsoft employee who got some stock and ended up with millions. I don't begrudge him it, but I doubt he did anything differently from the poor saps who got stock in losing companies and wound up with nothing.

And we can also speculate on how much those with multi-million dollar bonuses really earned them.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

since my neighbor's adopted daughter didn't earn this adoption into a middle-class American family that she stole that life from someone else? It's incoherent to say that this girl doesn't deserve the life she has, that she doesn't deserve to even be alive just because other kids in her position are now dead or still in that position.

Not that she doesn't deserve her life, but it would be sad and wildly inappropriate if she grew up to denounce relief for the disadvantaged on the grounds of "Hey, I got mine, let them work hard to get theirs" as all these self-righteous Republicans, with only a few less obvious debts to others' beneficience and their own good fortune, seem very comfortable doing.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Say create, not accumulate. I've been investing long enough that a very big chunk of the money in my retirement accounts is not earned, even counting the matching as earned. The still significant amount of equity in my house from the increase in price from 1996 (even after the crash) isn't earned either. And I can't claim to have earned my investment dollars from labor or intelligence, except the intelligence of getting a good investment advisor and listening to him.
You could say Bill Gates earned every penny. I doubt you can say that about some early Microsoft employee who got some stock and ended up with millions. I don't begrudge him it, but I doubt he did anything differently from the poor saps who got stock in losing companies and wound up with nothing.

And we can also speculate on how much those with multi-million dollar bonuses really earned them.

It would really help if you could define/describe for us someone that did actually earn something. Is it even possible?

You're ruled out investing, real estate, and anything pertaining to capital. And your last throw away line was obviously directed at the over paid CEOs. Who is left?

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-..._b_895589.html
here is a guy speaking for the poor misunderstood rich.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Cite?

You need to show that most wealth is this rather than, say, through financial markets or the ownership of physical property, which is where I believe most wealth actually originates. If the top 10% of a society has 80% of the wealth, that can't all be from wages.

Wages? Most of it is from return on capital investment - the result of compounded growth. In fact, from Pareto's Principle you would actually expect to see that kind of wealth accumulation at the top. That doesn't mean it's unearned - it just means that not everyone is the same, and the ones whose strengths are particularly valuable to others simply rise a lot higher than those who have characteristics that hold them back.

The real question is, how much can you extract from the peaks to fill in the troughs before you start lowering the general standard of living by killing your own productive giants?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Well, no, the real question that seems to be lost here is how this issue affects how you FEEL about paying taxes to help support the disadvantaged. It's obvious to me that most (wealthy) people feel that they've earned their wealth themselves, and seriously understate the degree to which their wealth derives from good fortune, criminal acts on the parts of many unknown ancestors, breaks given them by the government whose taxing powers they resent, and other non-personal sources. The mnore acknowledge this (to me, self-evident) truth, the less you resent paying taxes to help people less advantaged than you, because you're view taxes as an attempt to give back some of the wealth you've accrued through no work of your own.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I don't know about that. The market took all kinds of wealth from me in 2000-2001. That wasn't robbery. People who lost money on their homes weren't robbed. For my stock, I earned the money which bought it at 15, I didn't earn the increase in value to 100. And I didn't earn the money I got from cashing some of it out before the crash either (not enough.)

Yes, you did - return on investment is what you earn by taking a risk.

If you disagree, and feel that you didn't earn the increase in value since you were 15 and therefore have no right to retain it, do you agree that the government or some private actor could simply confiscate all of that value? You have no right to any of it, if you didn't earn any of it. So it isn't really a matter of the government taking some of it for the benefit of another - the government can take all of it for the same reason they can take some of it.

Which forms one of the disagreements between liberal views of government and taxation and conservative ones. I as a conservative, have no philosophical objection to taxation as a way to fund the limited functions of a constitutional government. I don't like it, but I recognize its need. What I object to, is the notion that government has an unlimited claim on my property because the scope of government action is unlimited.

Thus conservatives have the advantage in debates about taxation. We have the consistent principle that governments may not raise taxes unless they can point to the specific clause in the Constitution authorizing the function to be funded. Liberals/"living Constitution" types cannot, beyond a general assertion (as here) that government can claim any or all of the income and property of its citizens, because by default citizens have not earned and may not keep any of their property unless the government decides to let them. There is IOW no principle to justify the notion that the rich did not earn their money but the poor or middle class did.

Which even leads to bizarre notions about how the poor have the right to health care or transfer payments simply because they are alive and breathing, whereas the middle class or rich have no right to their money or property simply because they earned it. Fortunately this notion becomes ridiculous as soon as it is clearly stated.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

It's obvious to me that most (wealthy) people feel that they've earned their wealth themselves, and seriously understate the degree to which their wealth derives from good fortune, criminal acts on the parts of many unknown ancestors, breaks given them by the government whose taxing powers they resent, and other non-personal sources. The mnore acknowledge this (to me, self-evident) truth, the less you resent paying taxes to help people less advantaged than you, because you're view taxes as an attempt to give back some of the wealth you've accrued through no work of your own.

I think there's your problem. None of this is self-evident, and most of it isn't even true.

I put out this challenge before. I have a very close acquaintance who is, by virtually any standard, rich. He and his partner founded a small business which became very successful. If what you allege is self-evidently true, it should be possible for you to point out the breaks he got from the government that weren't available to anyone else, or that his success is due entirely to good fortune, or that his ancestors committed criminal acts that accrued to his benefit but not to anyone else's.

But nobody seems to be able to point that out. What breaks did the government give him that they didn't give to anyone else? Police protection? What protection did he get that allowed him to build up a business from almost nothing that they didn't give to everyone else in the society? Subsidized tuition to school? He didn't get any - his wife put him thru school. Good fortune? He didn't marry his wife by accident. And it wasn't by happenstance that he worked sixty hours a week for many years to build up the business.

But you allege it is self-evident that his success had nothing to do with his hard work and risk taking. I disbelieve this, and invite you to prove it.

Regards,
Shodan

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

No one "deserves" his wealth, is what I'm saying, and all attempts to claim that one's wealth has been earned by oneself is kind of small-minded and self-serving, though I'm not giving up my 401K on that basis, either.

Then your entire OP is bullshit because you don't really believe it.

It sounds like the point of view of someone who probably grew up with a relatively comfortible existance without any real idea or understanding how everything around them came into being. To them, it just "is". The water just pours out of the faucet. The garbage just sort of magically disappears every Tueday (or whenever trash pickup day is in your neighborhood). One of the advantages of having an education in engineering and business is that you actually learn where wealth comes from.

All wealth is derived from someone's labor. Whether it's digging ditches, coming up with an idea for the iPod, writing a play, pouring concrete or organizing a bunch of people to complete a particular project. It is the conversion of that labor that transforms raw materials in goods and services that people need and want. Certainly some degree of luck is involved. And some forms of wealth aren't "earned" since they required no risk and no labor. But saying that all wealth is a result of luck completely invalidates all of the hard work, calulated risk taking and good decision making that people do in order to build wealth. I didn't win my job on a game show. I do what I do because I worked hard to educate myself and build a professional reputation.

And really you know all of this to be true, which is why you don't just cash out your 401k and give it to the poor.

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I think the origins of wealth (property, goods, holdings etc.) lies at the heart of political philosophies. I've slowly come around to questioning the propriety of anyone's wealth, including my own, such as it is, and I think this questioning is the source of my politics. To take my example, I think around 1990, I owned exactly nothing and owed people (primarily my divorce attorney) a lot of money, but two decades later, I had accumulated a decent 401K, so I certainly could claim that I earned every bit of my "wealth" by the sweat of my brow, and I ain't sharing it with no one.

But I haven't. I earned that in part by having the education I had, and I got that education in part through my parents' resources, and by the good fortune to attend an expensive college that awarded academic scholarships, advantages that everyone did not start out with. My point is that if you go back far enough, and no one can except in theory, all advantages stem from luck and force, in that most wealth stems from acts that now we would consider crimes--slave-owning, to be sure, but also from following despotic leaders, who doled out rewards, or simply taking things because one had the strength to do, or by waging war on one's neighbor's (I'm talking about caveman days here--no need to get your hackles up from the insult to your noble grandpa.) No one "deserves" his wealth, is what I'm saying, and all attempts to claim that one's wealth has been earned by oneself is kind of small-minded and self-serving, though I'm not giving up my 401K on that basis, either. I think this realization underpins my inclination to help the disadvantaged, and I also think the rejection of this understanding (if it is a violent enough rejection) underpins the philosophy of those offended by the idea of helping the disadvantaged, which is basically "Why should I?"

In a philosophical sense, do you see any merit in the argument that wealth is ultimately unearned?

Some people are a hell of a lot luckier than others. Some people do literally nothing for their wealth. Some people work for it but they have had some good breaks like having parents who can afford to pay for a good college. Some people come from very poor or disadvantaged backgrounds and pretty much do it all on their own (I have one parent in the second category there, one in the last, so I know how much of a difference it makes in terms of how hard you have to work). Based on that, how do you measure how much of a person's wealth they deserve and how much they don't?

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

...you're obligated as an evolved member of civilization to pay back some of the victims of that criminal behavior by recognizing the degree to which your wealth is self-generated.

Whence comes your right to make that determination? Philosophically, how do you separate yourself from the thief?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by msmith537

Then your entire OP is bullshit because you don't really believe it

Thank you for not being, you know, hostile or anything.

I do what I do because I worked hard to educate myself and build a professional reputation.

And how did you come to have the opportunity to educate yourself? Are all disadvantaged people just born lazy and shiftless, or did you have any natural advantages over some other people?

And really you know all of this to be true, which is why you don't just cash out your 401k and give it to the poor.

No, as I explained, I don't live in a barrel on the street because I'm selfish, and because the system won't change an iota because I did that. But my compromise is that I don't express self-righteous umbrage whenever the idea of higher taxes is discussed.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Thank you for not being, you know, hostile or anything.

It's nothing personal. I'm just hostile towards the philosophy you proposed.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

And how did you come to have the opportunity to educate yourself? Are all disadvantaged people just born lazy and shiftless, or did you have any natural advantages over some other people?

It's a combination of natural advantages and having the infrastructure available to maximize those advantages. It's also the product of making intelligent choices.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

No, as I explained, I don't live in a barrel on the street because I'm selfish, and because the system won't change an iota because I did that. But my compromise is that I don't express self-righteous umbrage whenever the idea of higher taxes is discussed.

The whole "all taxes are theft" rhetoric is bullshit too. Taxes are a maintenence fee for living in a particular city/state or country. If you live on a self contained farm a hundred miles from nowhere, then maybe people can complain that there is no need for you to pay taxes. People who like having access to police, fire protection, paved roads, schools, hospitals, and so on should just accept that taxes are a part of not living in caves.

As for your selfishness, the whole point is that there is nothing wrong with that kind of selfishness. I presume you work for a living and are paid for it. Why should you not be able to do with your earnings as you see fit?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by msmith537

Why should you not be able to do with your earnings as you see fit?

Because far less than 100% of my earnings derive from my own self-generated labors. The labor of others has helped me to earn it, and I acknowledge this to be true by agreeing that some of my gross salary should be taxed. What that precise percentage is, is to be determined by a discussion, and elections, and so forth, but simply "NO NEW TAXES--NOW AND FOREVER, and no old ones either" is a self-serving position that I reject utterly.

[Chessic Sense]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

"Hey, I got mine, let them work hard to get theirs" as all these self-righteous Republicans

Unlike the self-righteous Democrats that insist that there's no possible way to get ahead in life and anyone that succeeds only did so by luck and accident.

Originally Posted by Shodan

Which even leads to bizarre notions about how the poor have the right to health care or transfer payments simply because they are alive and breathing, whereas the middle class or rich have no right to their money or property simply because they earned it. Fortunately this notion becomes ridiculous as soon as it is clearly stated.

Amen to that. I have no idea of this board's liberals maintain the fiction that wealth is accidental.

Originally Posted by Shodan

But you allege it is self-evident that his success had nothing to do with his hard work and risk taking. I disbelieve this, and invite you to prove it.

Don't bother. People with this sort of idea are the people that have never actually spoken with a successful, rich person. They think CEOs work 10-hour weeks instead of 10-hour days. They think that if you just pay enough money, you'll get a degree. They think that the only way to get a decent job is to know someone high up.


Currently, I'm solidifying my resume by studying up on Yemen. I believe that that's where my industry is headed next. When my predictions come true, and they start looking on Monster.com for a Yemen expert and I get a job making a quarter-mil, I can't wait to hear all the ignorant rubes on here tell me it was all due to accident, privilege, and chance.

prr, I'm giving you a homework assignment. Find a non-famous rich person and ask them how they got to be so. Ask them if it was handed to them or if they had to work for it. Report back here with your findings and tell us if you agree with their assessment or not.

[Chessic Sense]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

What that precise percentage is, is to be determined by a discussion, and elections, and so forth, but simply "NO NEW TAXES--NOW AND FOREVER, and no old ones either" is a self-serving position that I reject utterly.

As does everyone else. Why have you constructed this strawman labeled "no taxation" and insisted on beating it up?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I don't know, I hear a lot of Republican pols saying that they're offended by the very concept, and that they've pledged on their honor never to support any tax hikes ,for anything, ever, under any conceivable circumstances, and that they'd rather die with their heads in a barrel of pig shit than ever discuss the idea of raising any new taxes. Or haven't you heard this sort of talk?

[XT]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Because far less than 100% of my earnings derive from my own self-generated labors.

No one since the beginning of time has generated everything themselves, so it's a ridiculous bar to meet. If we take you out of the equation entirely, assume you had never been born, then there wouldn't be some non-zero amount of labor and value that was generated by some sort of place holder for you, however. No PRR doesn't mean that the 30, 40, 50% (or whatever) percent of your earnings that you didn't deserve is still generated even if you aren't there.

The labor of others has helped me to earn it, and I acknowledge this to be true by agreeing that some of my gross salary should be taxed.

What an odd notion. I pay taxes for the services that I expect the government to provide, not as some sort of guilt tithe for all the labor that supposedly got me to where I am.

What that precise percentage is, is to be determined by a discussion, and elections, and so forth, but simply "NO NEW TAXES--NOW AND FOREVER, and no old ones either" is a self-serving position that I reject utterly.

As Chessic Sense said, you are building a strawman and then knocking it down...and, frankly you aren't doing all that great a job of knocking it down with your odd notions about why people should or do pay taxes. Only the fringe say no taxes at all, and saying no new taxes is saying that the person making that statement already thinks that they are saying sufficient taxes....which is a debatable point, even if you 'reject utterly' that position as 'self-serving'. Personally, I think wallowing in guilt over how well you've done in your life is 'self-serving' in it's way as well, but you are certainly free to do so.

As to the question in the title of 'Whence comes wealth', well...obviously the Magic Wealth Fairy is the source of all wealth. The MWF's name is Need, of course. Your participation was not necessary, as if you weren't around then a place holder for you would have generated all of the labor and wealth that you ended up generating, since wealth is merely a collective and unconscious magic engine that chugs along whether we participate or not, and those folks who get rewarded by the magic engine do so because of luck, since any other place holder could have done the same, if they were merely lucky enough to have all the advantages and to do the same sorts of things and have the same sorts of ideas. I'm sure you could run a company and be a gazillionaire too if someone would just give you a company...

-XT

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Because far less than 100% of my earnings derive from my own self-generated labors. The labor of others has helped me to earn it, and I acknowledge this to be true by agreeing that some of my gross salary should be taxed.

Right. And those people are compensated for their labor just as you or I am.


Rational people* who are against the idea of raising taxes are against it because increasing taxes slows the economy. People and businesses have less purchasing power.

They also believe that depending on the central government to provide all these expensive services is inherently unsustainable. The government cannot make good on all the promises that people expect it to make and must then deficit spend itself into debt. You can see this happening now in much of Europe and the US where debt is at an all time high.

Not that I am not specifying Democrats or Republicans because I think both parties are guilty of overspending. Just on different stuff.

[Chessic Sense]

As for the answer of "whence comes wealth" and the assertion that it comes from crime and stealing, consider the lone adventurer, wandering the wilderness of some uninhabited land.

One day, he reaches a particularly beautiful valley with a stream in it and a wooded glade just on the other side. He decides to take a rock from the creek, fasten it to a stick, and hews the largest tree. Where this one falls, he claims "This is my homestead," and proceeds to erect a cabin on top of it. From that day forth, he hunts the local deer to make clothing, tools, and food.

The cabin is worth more to him than the trees did when they were standing. The rock and twig were worth less to him when they were separate. The deer is worth more dead than alive. So overall, the man is more wealthy now.

That's how worth is created. The man made 1+1 equal 3. No theft involved. Now, in your philosophy, to whom does the adventurer owe taxes?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by msmith537

Right. And those people are compensated for their labor just as you or I am.

Not slaves. Not exploited child-laborers. Not a lot of people who have, in the history of civilization, been taken advantage of.

Some of these people got exploited, and I'm living with some of the advantages their having been exploited earned. And some of lived long enough to procreate, and some of their decendents are less able than I've been to live a comfortable life, get a good education, learn some marketable skills, etc.

Is there any part of this you disagree with so far?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by xtisme

What an odd notion. I pay taxes for the services that I expect the government to provide

Provide for whom? You and you and you alone?

[XT]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Provide for whom? You and you and you alone?

Yeah...I expect them to build a road just for me, to have a fire and rescue unit on call just for me, have my own police officer, possibly my own dingy for Coast Guard and Navy, possibly my own soldier as well, etc etc.

Seriously...where did you think you were going with that? We all pay taxes to the government because we all expect the government to provide certain services. Obviously it's debatable as to which services and how much service the government should provide, but at the core we collectively want the government to provide something of value for the taxes we pay.

-XT

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Just raising the concept that taking taxes completely off the table is unrealistic. We're arguing about how much we need to pay in taxes, and on what, but this position that the Republicans in Congress are taking that no tax increases can be discussed (but only while a Democrat is the White House) is illegitimate by any sensible person's standards.

[XT]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Just raising the concept that taking taxes completely off the table is unrealistic.

Why? It's a strawman that no one has raised in this thread. Like I said, it's a fringe concept from the whack-a-do anarchist types.

We're arguing about how much we need to pay in taxes, and on what, but this position that the Republicans in Congress are taking that no tax increases can be discussed (but only while a Democrat is the White House) is illegitimate by any sensible person's standards.

Oh...so THAT'S what your thread is all about. A re-hash of the same arguments in the other threads on the debt increase and the Republicans hard line on no new tax increases. Sorry...I thought you wanted to talk about something different. I'll leave it to you guys then since I really don't have much to say on the topic.

-XT

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by emacknight

It would really help if you could define/describe for us someone that did actually earn something. Is it even possible?

You're ruled out investing, real estate, and anything pertaining to capital. And your last throw away line was obviously directed at the over paid CEOs. Who is left?

Sure, anyone who creates more value for his or her company than he gets paid is earning it. A CEO who has created a lot of stockholder value has earned it, even. The CEOs who didn't earn it are those who destroy stockholder value, and employee value, but still get the big bucks.

And not all real estate gains are unearned. The developer who puts together a project is earning his return. Even Trump. Assuming it flies - if the investors lose their shirts, not so much.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Well, this is the root of it, I think. There may be no taxes levied on hard-working Americans who generate their own earnings are entitled to keep all of it. That mindset can only operate in people who think it's accurate to say that their income is 100% legitimately earned by them and them alone, and that taxes are imposed by an unwelcome and illegitimate governmen entity giving their income to people who have not earned the right to any of it.

[XT]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Well, this is the root of it, I think. There may be no taxes levied on hard-working Americans who generate their own earnings are entitled to keep all of it. That mindset can only operate in people who think it's accurate to say that their income is 100% legitimately earned by them and them alone, and that taxes are imposed by an unwelcome and illegitimate governmen entity giving their income to people who have not earned the right to any of it.

100% of what I make is 'legitimately earned' unless I get it through illegal means. Again, you have a rather odd way of looking at things. I earn what I make and make what I earn. Out of the money I earn I have expenses...I have to buy gasoline for my car, I have to buy food for my table, electricity for my house, phone and data services, my monthly porn and game charges, other entertainment, etc etc...and I have to pay taxes for government services that I use or that the society I live in uses. None of this means I didn't earn all of the money I make 'legitimately', it merely means I can't have my cake and eat it too...I can't make large piles of money but not pay any of it out if I expect to eat, roads to drive on, folks to fight fires or police the roads, etc etc.

-XT

[Deegeea]

Different political viewpoint groups have different opinions on what services governments should provide and what services are better provided by private enterprise.

For those who are of the opinion that one of the services government should provide is basic life support for people who are unable to provide it for themselves, whether because they are too young and lack responsible volunteer caretakers (parents or otherwise), or too old, or some other reason (there are many possible and it isn't really relevant to list them all, except to say disagreements on what the list should include or exclude are also arenas of political disagreement), the fact expressed by the original poster (that no one's wealth is created purely by forces fully within their personal control) is relevant.

Why should my hard earned money be taxed to pay for food for someone I never met and don't care about personally? Because the fact that someone paid for my food when I was unable to care for myself is part of the reason I am able to create wealth by my efforts now. Because good luck that I was intelligent, able to do things others were not, made my efforts valuable and able to create wealth and earn money.

Now when I say "taxed" I don't mean entirely removed, as obviously (as well asserted in many replies above) some portion of the money is earned by efforts I do control (I come to work every day, I work for long hours, I take pains to do well, I take risks that pay off, etc). But if I have a stroke and am paralyzed and can't think straight, I could no longer do those things or earn money. I'd instead be spending the same amount of effort to relearn how to speak or get across a room. That may not create wealth and earn me any money, but it wouldn't be for lack of my working hard. Taxed should be a percentage; but what percentage it is? Is 60% less appropriate than 30%? That's a matter of political debate on which both sides have reasonable stances.

My own personal opinion is that I consider paying taxes (not just me personally - but all citizens paying taxes) a reasonable exchange for government services (not just for me personally - for citizens in general), and I would support paying higher taxes and getting additional services in some cases. The case of medical treatment seems to be a clear winner in that when medical services are left to private suppliers, it generally ends up that needing them makes anyone less able to buy them (being sick means you are unable to work as hard and therefore creating less wealth and probably earning less money). It also leads to a lot of "snake oil" situations.

Governments are more likely to have the ability to investigate and properly allocate resources for medical treatment than the private market. This is not true for most other things (housing, for example) and I think it would be a good idea for government to get out of supplying housing. Food also may be a good candidate for reducing the amount of government spending. I think government supplying health care would actually be a better use of tax money than crop subsidies, food stamps, and other government spending that affects food supply. Keeping people healthy is very likely to allow more people to work more and create more wealth for the entire economy to grow.