Good point–we should all do this! I’ll start.
Of course that won’t work: folks who spend enough to keep others in work aren’t producing anything for anyone. They’re just taking stuff others have made and smearing it around some. What’s the use in that? Instead of having them do the smearing around of wealth, the folks who are actually doing something useful could smear it around instead.
There’s nothing useful at all about living off of other folks’ work.
Daniel
That is why you have communist sympathies. You don’t understand economics and I have found that true for most people with such leanings. You translate economic worth into personal worth and it causes cognitive dissonance when you start to people that you believe have economic worth above their perceived (according to you) personal worth. I find that everyone from Hollywood celebrities to college professors conflate the two when they aren’t really related.
It isn’t that simple. A real-life semi-disabled janitor may work his ass off his whole life yet not really contribute all that much to your society. Likewise, a young Ph.D. may make a discovery at age 28 that enables her to retire extremely early and yet a valuable contribution to say medicine that far outstrips what most people ever do. The founders of Google are both young and mindbogglingly wealthy and if they retired today, I would say that they contributed as much as anyone can to society.
Wealth and personal value aren’t directly correlated and it is good that they aren’t because economies can’t function when we try to base them off of some perverted peer review of someones intellectual worth based nebulous values.
This isn’t a zero sum game we are talking about here. The fact that someone has $1 billion at 30 years old should mean nothing to others when the wealth was created and not taken from anyone else.
…but for little perspective, check out this link.
Yeah, but let’s be reasonable here. The thing that puts those folks so high on the scale is the fact that there are all these Third World societies where people earn zilch, basically, and where children pretty much constitute your social security net so they have lots of them whether they can feed them or not (the world’s slavery market depends on this) and just in general are screwed senseless by their culture and the rich people who run things in their society. Conditions differ so greatly between the Third World, the Old World and the New World that it doesn’t seem fair to me to lump them together.
Well, you don’t understand reality, which is why you have capitalist sympathies. Most wealth is inherited. It’s obtained by people whose total required effort was to win the lucky sperm lottery. That’s all. Most of them grow up to be mediocre folks, but thanks to their wealth whatever little they do is obscenely rewarding. I’ve heard that here in America even pinheaded coke-snorting party boy can grow up to be President here if his mommy and daddy are rich and connected enough, and I believe it!
No, it’s a BAD thing, because it means decent, caring, hard-working folks can struggle all their lives for it and see zilch for it while depraved scumbags are carried, to the skies, on flowery clouds of ease. It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s as wrong as can be and it will be replaced by something better, probably sooner rather than later.
No, it’s not a zero sum game, but if you think $1 billion at 30 years old (actually, iI think the the guy who invented Youtube is only 24 and got a billion) is reasonable compensation for his contribution and efforts, well, that’s kinda sad, in my opinion. To me it’s an obvious failure our economic system. It’s supposed to be a means of keeping the value of something ratinal, not a fucking lotto.
Got a cite for that?
:rolleyes: The fact that you’ve found that true says more about you than it does about me. Trust me, your little lecture on your own ideology is neither news to me nor especially relevant to what I’ve said. Especially to what I’ve said, twice, and which I’ll say a third time but not again:
Daniel
How do you define who has worked their asses off and at what age are they allowed to retire?
Is the YouTube go free and clear to retire in his 20’s according to you at this point? What about the successful small business owners or stockbrokers that killed themselves for a few years in order to retire early? What about people that inherited wealth and just want to do some rather light-duty but important charity work? Bill Gates just relinquished a lot of control in Microsoft in order to focus on his foundation. You might call that semi-retirement. Is he more evil now?
I am just not following the rules here. Please elaborate.
No, because it’s not really necessary. That’s a very generous exception, and if I play your game, you’ll just end up finding people that don’t technically fit under my elaboration and suggesting that I’m all wet. I’m not interested in that.
Instead, lemme suggest you look back at the original context, when we were talking about people who don’t have ot work, and I referred to Marie Antoinette. She’s a good example. Paris Hilton’s a good example. The extremely rich who are born into money and who don’t have to work are pretty great examples, as long as they don’t actually work. People who don’t have to work because they’ve contributed something are, of course, not good examples. How complicated is this?
Daniel
Or if you have saved up your own sweat or maybe inherented/won a sweaty windfall. I’m not making a moral judgement as to where the money comes from.
I said it three times, so I won’t say it a fourth.
Shrug. I will.
Daniel
If you have the money to support yourself and provide a livelihood to others who provide you with goods and services then great - go right ahead.
That must be the “buying it thereby providing income for others” meaning of “smearing”.
The company that makes it gets revenue. The workers who work for that company get paid. The suppliers to those companies get revenue and their workers get paid.
Why introduce welfare recipients into this discussion?
As is shown by a look at the Forbes 400 list of the richest people which cites inheritance as a source for, er, 21 of them. And only two in the top 100.
Yeah, that would be it. Because what they’re doing is living off of other folks’ wealth, not creating any wealth. Take them out of the system, and what happens to their money? it doesn’t magically disappear with them. Money doesn’t grow on trees, nor does it put food in anyone’s mouth: it represents the wealth that other folks create.
Daniel
Hmm. And I’m getting way too sucked into a GD-like hijack, so I’ll leave it there.
Daniel
Of course. First of all, it’s EXTREMELY HARD to find cites for this sort of thing on the Web, and here’s why:
You see the problem. Here’s the paper it came from:
That said, this chart
is rather revealing. The top 1 percent of Americans will inherit 1/3 of the wealth in an average amount of $3.6 million. Nice chunka change, there. The top ten percent inherit a paltry $396,000. Pikers. The rest of us … fuck the rest of us! This is America! Only the rich matter!
Here’s where I got that one:
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/dodson_usa_wealth_distribution.html
So I think my general proposition that a lot of rich people are getting a free ride is absolutely correct. The exact percentage … really hard to define. If we split the diff between 20 percent and 80 percent we get 50 percent … works for me!
We mustn’t be quite so credulous when dealing with Forbes, as this article indicates.. Actually, more than half of the folks on Forbes’ list had a considerable head start on the rest of us.
meh
Right. Poor people count less.
:rolleyes:
:mad:
not- :eek:
Yeah, and I’ve seen other estimates that put the amount of wealth due to inheritance at 8%.
You realize that the number for the top 1% is probably skewed by a handful of tremendously wealthy families - the Gettys, Rockefellers, etc. I’d like to see that top 1% broken down into the top .1% and the other top .9%.
And what do you think the Gettys, Rockefellers, and Hiltons do with their money? Hide it in a sack so they can crawl around in it and cackle evilly? No, the vast bulk of those family’s assets are tied up in investments managed by professional money managers. Paris Hilton will only touch a tiny fraction of her wealth. The rest will be at work in the economy. And even the money she spends helps prop up things like the yappy dog and videotape industries.
If you took all their money away in a fit of egalitarian zeal, just what do you think would happen? Suddenly the poor would be farting through silk? Nope. It would be government revenue, and not much revenue at that. They’d blow it on pork, all you’d have is a one-time wealth transfer from a small group of stewards to a larger group of people who manage to win government contracts. In the meantime, lacking the incentive to build major wealth, all the people farther down the ladder would stop striving to climb it. And they’re the productive ones.
As for that other top 10%, 396,000 doesn’t make you rich, and I’ll be willing to bet you a big chunk of that comes from inheriting family homes and such when parents die, not being a ‘trust fund baby’ and not having to work. A lot of people live middle class lives and then when their parents die they get a reasonable inheritance that they can use to help pay for their retirement and pass the rest down to their own kids when they die - sort of a familial safety net, rather than kids growing up in wealth from inheritances. In fact, every single person I know who inherited wealth came upon it this way - getting a nest egg to retire on when their own parents died.
For the life of me, I can’t see anything wrong with this. In fact, I think it’s very healthy. If I didn’t know that whatever’s left when I die would go to my daughter, I wouldn’t bother to save and my wife and I would take a reverse mortage on the house at retirement and use the money to travel or buy some cool toys like an RV. But since I have a daughter who could use the money, I’ll be much more likely to invest it wisely, let it grow, and only draw what I need to maintain a comfortable retirement.
It’s THEIR money. THEIR property. They can do what they damned well please with it. Class warfare is just another ugly form of jealousy.
Uh huh. Because you want to believe it.