Thread: One thing that the wealthy don't get...

Is that the money they made is based on the strength of society at large rather than their individual skills at making money.
For instance, in todays society I could be the most skilled person in allocating capital (think warren buffet) and this would be a unique skill that would lend lots and lots of money going into my pockets because of the way that society allows people to make money.
If I have a skill to allocate capital, but was born in the era of hunter/gatherer, then I would quickly be cast off from the tribe and considered to be useless.
Point being: the ability to make money is intricately tied to the society that one lives in.

With that said, your money isn't really your money; its money that society has allowed you to have, because you have some skill that society wants to pay you for. No one has made billions, millions, thousands, hundreds, or even single dollars, without being paid by someone else, whether it is their employer or their customer.
So why is it that those who benefit most from this current system are unwilling to pay their relative share? Why is it that there is massive protests when someone wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, but no protests when the price of oil surges to record highs (its simply the free-market, no speculation at all :sarcasm, or the price of healthcare is the highest in the world (its simply illegal immigrants, or the bloated government, or the incompetent American), or millions of Americans and small business owners lose their jobs/can't expand because of the weakening dollar and the sub-prime mortgage crises (well, they shouldn't have bought those homes or taken on too much risk)?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

Is that the money they made is based on the strength of society at large rather than their individual skills at making money.
For instance, in todays society I could be the most skilled person in allocating capital (think warren buffet) and this would be a unique skill that would lend lots and lots of money going into my pockets because of the way that society allows people to make money.
If I have a skill to allocate capital, but was born in the era of hunter/gatherer, then I would quickly be cast off from the tribe and considered to be useless.
Point being: the ability to make money is intricately tied to the society that one lives in.

With that said, your money isn't really your money; its money that society has allowed you to have, because you have some skill that society wants to pay you for. No one has made billions, millions, thousands, hundreds, or even single dollars, without being paid by someone else, whether it is their employer or their customer.
So why is it that those who benefit most from this current system are unwilling to pay their relative share? Why is it that there is massive protests when someone wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, but no protests when the price of oil surges to record highs (its simply the free-market, no speculation at all :sarcasm, or the price of healthcare is the highest in the world (its simply illegal immigrants, or the bloated government, or the incompetent American), or millions of Americans and small business owners lose their jobs/can't expand because of the weakening dollar and the sub-prime mortgage crises (well, they shouldn't have bought those homes or taken on too much risk)?

Even though I agree with your conclusion that rich people should pay more taxes, I still don't understand how the wealthy person doesn't own their own money, and is therefore completely responsible with it.

Even if someone's earnings was on account of someone else, the point that people try to make is that since a person has accumulated large amounts of money, that person's current buisiness activity is productive and their money can be profitiably spent there.

Just because someone was lucky enough to have a valuable skill that doesn't at all mean that their money wasn't rightfully owned.

"Rightfull" tax burdon is also very subjective because even though I consider a "rightfull tax burdon" to be progressive, many people would just argue that a fair tax, taxes everyone at the same percent of their income.

I can confused about what exactly you are saying.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

With that said, your money isn't really your money; its money that society has allowed you to have

I think you put this :sarcasm: in the wrong place.

You would do well working for the IRS...or do you already?

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Even though I agree with your conclusion that rich people should pay more taxes, I still don't understand how the wealthy person doesn't own their own money, and is therefore completely responsible with it.

Even if someone's earnings was on account of someone else, the point that people try to make is that since a person has accumulated large amounts of money, that person's current buisiness activity is productive and their money can be profitiably spent there.

Just because someone was lucky enough to have a valuable skill that doesn't at all mean that their money wasn't rightfully owned.

"Rightfull" tax burdon is also very subjective because even though I consider a "rightfull tax burdon" to be progressive, many people would just argue that a fair tax, taxes everyone at the same percent of their income.

I can confused about what exactly you are saying.

What I'm saying is this.
By and large, people make their money on the basis that they have some skill that others are willing to exchange something for. For instance, in the case of warren buffet, he has the ability to allocate capital really well; what happens is that he has a certain amount of money that he invests in businesses, which provides him a certain amount of ownership of that company. Or, he invests in funds of businesses, which also exchange his funds for part ownership of something else.

Exxon mobil makes so much in terms of profits because there are so many people who are willing to pay money for the gasoline that they provide. Microsoft makes so much money because so many people pay more for windows-based products.

As such, a persons profits, or ability to make money, is directly dependent upon the state of technology as well as general society. Without the advent of computers, microsoft would not exist. Without the discovery of oil, exxon mobil would not exist. Without the high amount of people who use cars, exxon mobil would not make much profits. Without the high amount of computer usage, microsoft would not make profits.

I'm not saying that people don't own their own money. What I'm saying is that they have a vested interest in the society at large - exxon mobil has a vested interest in making sure that the general transportation of America works well, microsoft has a vested interest in making sure that the general cyber-infrastructure of America works well, because without these things they cannot make money. Without well maintained roads, people will not drive cars, and thus people will not by gas for those cars; without well maintained computer systems and the internet, people will not buy/use/need microsoft products.

So, when any of the supposed liberals suggest that the wealthy should pay higher taxes so that some of the less fortunate people of the country can benefit, say in the form of better schooling or health insurance or some other form of public good, I am confused why there are so many people among the more wealthy who refuse to pay it back on the grounds that its 'their money' or whatnot. Yes, they have the deed that proclaims it to be their money, that they can use as they want, but they make money off of other people, so in a sense they are only entitled to spend that money, not really own it.

Originally Posted by Invayne

I think you put this :sarcasm: in the wrong place.

You would do well working for the IRS...or do you already?

look at my reasoning one post below this one.

Sounds like the Communist Manifesto to me.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

What I'm saying is this.
By and large, people make their money on the basis that they have some skill that others are willing to exchange something for. For instance, in the case of warren buffet, he has the ability to allocate capital really well; what happens is that he has a certain amount of money that he invests in businesses, which provides him a certain amount of ownership of that company. Or, he invests in funds of businesses, which also exchange his funds for part ownership of something else.

Exxon mobil makes so much in terms of profits because there are so many people who are willing to pay money for the gasoline that they provide. Microsoft makes so much money because so many people pay more for windows-based products.

As such, a persons profits, or ability to make money, is directly dependent upon the state of technology as well as general society. Without the advent of computers, microsoft would not exist. Without the discovery of oil, exxon mobil would not exist. Without the high amount of people who use cars, exxon mobil would not make much profits. Without the high amount of computer usage, microsoft would not make profits.

I'm not saying that people don't own their own money. What I'm saying is that they have a vested interest in the society at large - exxon mobil has a vested interest in making sure that the general transportation of America works well, microsoft has a vested interest in making sure that the general cyber-infrastructure of America works well, because without these things they cannot make money. Without well maintained roads, people will not drive cars, and thus people will not by gas for those cars; without well maintained computer systems and the internet, people will not buy/use/need microsoft products.

So, when any of the supposed liberals suggest that the wealthy should pay higher taxes so that some of the less fortunate people of the country can benefit, say in the form of better schooling or health insurance or some other form of public good, I am confused why there are so many people among the more wealthy who refuse to pay it back on the grounds that its 'their money' or whatnot. Yes, they have the deed that proclaims it to be their money, that they can use as they want, but they make money off of other people, so in a sense they are only entitled to spend that money, not really own it.

OK I understand what you are saying now, and it does sound like some communist manifesto if you look at it.

Well, wealthy individuals and supports of the free market would just say that investments in education and infrastructure can be accomplished by private individuals. There is still ways that rich individuals can benefit their society on their own, including payed schooling for someone and the person then will work at that company,

but I would agree in that those ways are innefecitve, and in the long run extra taxes on a company for education will benefit that company, and its owner, if that company will exist for an incredibly long time. However, companys and rich individuals don't ever think that far in advance, partially because the connections are so indirect. It is the government's job to think that far in advance for rich individuals and companies.

Everyone in society is able to get money because society exists. And they repay society for the money they make through the work they put in to get it.

Originally Posted by Libre

Sounds like the Communist Manifesto to me.

can you honestly say that you 100% determine your fate?

Originally Posted by Nerv14

OK I understand what you are saying now, and it does sound like some communist manifesto if you look at it.

Well, wealthy individuals and supports of the free market would just say that investments in education and infrastructure can be accomplished by private individuals. There is still ways that rich individuals can benefit their society on their own, including payed schooling for someone and the person then will work at that company,

but I would agree in that those ways are innefecitve, and in the long run extra taxes on a company for education will benefit that company, and its owner, if that company will exist for an incredibly long time. However, companys and rich individuals don't ever think that far in advance, partially because the connections are so indirect. It is the government's job to think that far in advance for rich individuals and companies.

firstly, can you say with 100% honesty that you control your own destiny?
But yes, there are ways that society can benefit from the actions of a single man. Goodness knows i'm not saying that philanthropy is a bad thing.
My point was not that the government should tax the wealthy to form healthcare stuff, but three-fold:

1) Money does not have any owners, it only has spenders.
2) If society sets up a system of ownership, then some will win and some will lose.
2a) In any given society, there are people who own and those who do not own.
2b) Those who own benefit, and those who do not own do not benefit.
3) In order to maintain the stability of the system, those who own must invest in the system in order to make sure that it remains stable.

So, on one hand, yes a persons money is their money; but their money is intricately tied into the system that they made it from. And, I think that if a part of a given system has made the system unstable for many actors, you that situation needs to be corrected. Healthcare prices, oil prices, value of the dollar, are all things that are in danger, if not already, of un-doing the stability of the current system. Beyond that, there is the derivative market; according to that georgewashington blog, heavens knows if thats accurate, derivatves are worth in excess of 500 trillion! These derivatives are based on suspect loanms, and if the market collapses, we're looking at a viable meltdown in liquid capital.