Can someone explain to me why wealth is a legitimate form of income?
Say, even if someone isn't born into wealth and actually worked for their wealth.
This wealth isn't just a "reward" for their work, it's a substitute.
And eventually inheritance makes it so you're just calling aristocracy by another name.
Hardworking parents should be able to leave their offspring well off, even if the wealth sustains several generations of family
I'm not going to put my family members and foreigners on the same platform of importance to me. I can guarantee they don't.
>inb4 some pseudo-Nietzschean argument that any sort of charity for our loved ones will only destroy them, and only through continuously undermining ourselves will we grow stronger
But why should society tolerate your sons living as parasites?
They're not living as parasites, if they're living off the surplus stored up by either me or my ancestors
They're not using up what you left them.
They earn money just by virtue of having it.
Explain, and then give ten examples.
Wealth rarely lasts longer than three generations
If they inherited enough, they can invest it, live a life of luxury, and leave for their heirs more than you left them.
But then they have worked well, for they must know HOW to invest.
Do you think investments are free money? Boy, I know I'd be rich if it was easy
I bet this line of argument is going to end with "Real communism has never been tried!"
if you invest into something you are putting your money at risk, and you are contributing to the economy. What other forms of "free money" are you referring to? If it's really as safe and easy as you claim, why doesn't everybody do it?
I'm still waiting for those examples.
Or.. they can just hire an investor to do it for them. Of course they'd save that money if they did it themselves, but the point is that they don't have to.
Is it?
I don't think communism is something achievable, but it seems to me that some of the marxist criticism of capitalism makes sense.
True. The problem is though that gains from investing are exponentially greater the more capital you have available to invest.
I'm not giving you any.
But everyone DOES do it.
Do you keep all your money on a stash at home or something? No, you're gonna keep any particularly large amount of money on a savings account at the very least.
So you want to become a debt slave with a mortgage and a car loan?
Thank god i'll never have to give half of my "disposable income" every month for years just to have a roof over my head, and never be at risk of a bank taking my home away.
Thank you grandpa, thank you dad, for all that you did to make sure i will never be burdened with a mortgage.
>muh spoiled gorillionaires
First off, that's an incredibly small part of the population. Why would you discredit an ancient human concept that appears everywhere? Because of a dozen Paris Hiltion's? A child inherits their parent's sword, hammer, computer, doesn't matter at what period or where, it's natural legitimate human behavior.
Also, investing is not fucking easy. If you mean investing it financially, it takes a lot of skill to manage that risk, or a very expensive expert to do it for you.
If by invest you mean start your own thing. Become an entrepreneur, that takes a lot of skill and a lot of creativity.
>First off, that's an incredibly small part of the population.
Like an aristocracy right?
>A child inherits their parent's barony, duchy, kingdom, doesn't matter at what period or where, it's natural legitimate human behavior.
>Become an entrepreneur, that takes a lot of skill and a lot of creativity.
It takes a lot of skill and creativity if you have nothing and need to convince someone with a lot of money to invest in you.
If you already have money, you just need to find someone with a lot of skill and creativity.
And again, doing that is a job and you can hire someone to do it.
Not gonna read that now.
Yes but with that comes an increase in risk and so the job becomes more challenging, not only that but more is being contributed to the economy. So what's the problem here?
The manager wants to maximize his profit with minimum effort.
It's easy for said manager to rip them off as the inheritor doesn't have enough knowledge.
Same goes for hiring someone to clean your house. How do you know they're doing a good job if you can't monitor them. How do you know they don't just finish cleaning in an hour and then dick around until you're supposed to come back and get paid per hour.
That is a real problem, but there are ways to counter it, like having commissions and not relying on too few people who can collude.
It doesn't fundamentally change things.
>Yes but with that comes an increase in risk
You don't have a proportionally higher risk. Hell you might reach that "too big to fail" threshold.
My parents are millionaires and it does feel kinda strange, like all my life choices and outcomes were predetermined by someone else's bank account. I intend to give most of it to charity and just be upper middle class when I finally have kids.
Can you tell me the basis you have for determining what is legitimate income, and what is presumably illegitimate income?
And by that, I mean who the fuck do you think you are?
I'm not determining anything, i'm asking why is it legitimate.
>Gives money to charity.
>Asians and Africans come into country and invest to buy their kids BMWs and Gucci.
Do you think these people are giving shit to charity when they come here?
>we live an individualist meritocratic society
>you don't have to work in your entire life thanks to your parents money
choose one
Everything should belong to the state.
All children should be groomed by the state and analysed by the state to prevent favoritism by their parents. The children should be recommended the niches in which they fit. All children should be given equal opportunity and they should grow up in equal conditions. If this happens then everyone will fullfil the roles that they would best fit in.
Communism is the only thing that can achieve my dream of ultimate equality and efficiency of society
>communism
>state
0/10 polish your memeing and come back
>communism
You're talking fascism, almost exactly as Mussolini promulgated it. You're a fucking idiot.
If you adhere to pure laissez-faire capitalist economics, then there's no issue here. The wealth has been garnered by someone and has been distributed as the person sees fit. It's like saying "why should anyone receive charity, they aren't working."
Now if you adhere to the labor theory of value, issues come into play. Again the person should be free to garner as much revenue as they desire, but contingent upon the labor required to garner such revenue. At which point wealth distribution of any kind would be improper, including charity, because wealth has been distributed without labor.
The ltov is descriptive, not normative.
If it's not normative then how's it supposed become a reality?
It's not "supposed to become a reality", it's a description of the origin of value in commodities according to classical economists. At least read the wikipedia article, user.
I have, but suppose something is as it is. There must be a coordinate system related to that which is. So I suppose I should've said "suppose an economy existed which rooted itself in the labor theory of value."
Oh yeah? How do you plan on stopping people from inheriting what their parents have lawfully bequeathed to them without going full collectivist and confiscating people's wealth to prevent anyone from inheriting anything?
I don't know what you mean by "rooted itself" but I feel like you still think the ltov is something enforced and related to morality. The ltov is the equivalent of saying that water boils at 100 degrees, a classical economist will not discuss its desirability the same way a chemist will not ponder if boiling water at less degrees is "improper" or not.
Makes me feel good that nobody will ever listen to anti-wealth and anti-inheritance cretins because their entire shallow ideology is rooted in petty bitterness that is obvious to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
>these two beliefs are contradictory
>yeah? and what will you replace my belief with?
Not my problem, honestly.
It's hardly my fault today was this hot.
>Can someone explain to me why wealth is a legitimate form of income?
What makes something legitimate OP?
Those concepts are only mutually exclusive to you because you're a liberal and cannot comprehend value through a dynastic prism.
It's the same reason why liberals can't wrap their heads around something as simple as national pride. Too self-absorbed o conceive your existence before and beyond your life-line.
Spookiness.
Or just acceptance in non-stirner terms
>Those concepts are only mutually exclusive to you because you're a liberal and cannot comprehend value through a dynastic prism.
What did he mean by this
>But why should society tolerate your sons living as parasites?
Because I as a parent chose to invest in my children's future. Its in societies interest to tolerate this as it is something that most parents have an interest and desire in. To go against this would mean having to force people not to invest in their children.
What kinds of outcomes do you think you will get if you start punishing people for wanting their children to be happy?
>Or just acceptance
That's a new definition of legitimacy you have created user
I'm not sure about a solution here, or if this is ultimately a good idea, but if most parents can't give an advantage to their children, isn't it in their best interest to nullify the "unfair" advantage of someone else's?
Also stop saying "invest", it makes you sound like an economicist idiot, you're caring for your children because you love them, not because you think they will give you a better return than a shipment of dragon dildos
If something is widely accepted it is legitimate, how is this a revolutionary concept?
>If something is widely accepted it is legitimate, how is this a revolutionary concept?
Because legitimacy as a term is based on something conforming with rules and standards. Acceptance is simply agreement or non resistance.
>isn't it in their best interest to nullify the "unfair" advantage of someone else's?
Firstly almost all parents in history can give advantage to their children even reading to them is a great advantage. Secondly you seem to be talking as if its a zero sum game and one child benefiting from and advantage means taking something away from another which is something you would need to prove first.
>Also stop saying "invest", it makes you sound like an economicist idiot,
Or just someone who reads as outside of newspapers its a term thats very often used interchangeably with endow
It's zero-sum because if someone is prevented from inheriting, that inheritance isn't just gonna be buried with the father, it's gonna be used for something.
why work all your life to leave money to someone else's kids? that's just masochistic and against all natural imperatives.
Unironically kill yourself so humanity can move forward.
why work all your life to leave money to someone?
>I'm not going to put my family members and foreigners on the same platform of importance to me.
???
I don't even consider myself left wing.
Nor is the money going to disappear when inherited- the money is going to be spent either way the current option simply works in conjunction with a parents natueal love and affection.
because it's your kid, you edgy twat. why wouldn't you want to give your family an advantage?
Because I care about my kids
I don't know if the love and affection make it better.
Poor parents don't love their kids less.
Of course i'm gonna give shit to my kids if i can.
Doesn't mean i'm gonna work all my fucking life with that purpose in mind.
you're very clever
thank you
It does, it makes a huge difference especially in the early years of education.
I did not say that poor people love their children less only that the current system of inheritance works so well because it is naturally fits with a parents love for their child.
Do you think
Sorry that do you think was the start of another paragraph I was going to include not an insult
1984 is not a fucking manual
Hell yeah, gonna live off that 0,2% interest you get nowadays.
>Hardworking parents should be able to leave their offspring well off, even if the wealth sustains several generations of family
Why?
Can you explain to me why wealth should be a result of work rather than the application of resorces in general?
How is inherited wealth any worse than wealth procured through talent? Both are accidents of birth afterall.
I want equality.
It's not 1984 you faggots.
I don't know, it just seems to make more sense that people be expected to contribute to society.
Imagine that shit happening in a tribal society: while everyone goes hunting or gathering, one guy just sits and does nothing but eat what the others bring because his grandfather found the spot where the village is located a long time ago so everyone has to pay him rent.
>Imagine that shit happening in a tribal society:
Do we live in a tribal society which has not concept or money or trade beyond barter?
Everyone hates inheritance these days:
bloomberg.com
Let’s start with some basic moral observations: Once you are dead, you no longer have a voting interest in what goes on in society. Thus, your interest in how your assets get disposed of after you’re no longer using them is minimal. While you’re alive, I’ll defend your property rights vigorously. Once you have died, however, you lose my support.
Society does not have an interest in your desire to ensure that your children are better off than other children. I understand that you have a great interest in this matter. I applaud the tireless work you put in to this end. But society’s job is all children, not specific children who are lucky enough to have hit the genetic lottery. And its aim should be for a society of equal opportunity to succeed and get rich. So once you’ve died, and no longer have property rights society needs to protect, there’s no particular moral precept that points toward helping your children inherit. On a moral level, I’d be perfectly comfortable with a 100 percent tax on anything you haven’t passed on before your death.
Now we’ll add in a policy reason for the estate tax: Without it, inheritance becomes a mass tax-avoidance scheme. While the owners were living, their assets piled up capital gains. If they’d sold them while they were alive, they’d have to pay taxes on those gains. But when people die, the estate system does something called “stepping up the basis” of those assets, which in plain English, means that the assets are revalued to today’s price, so that when the heirs sell them, they only have to pay the difference between the asset’s value when they inherited, and the asset’s value when they sell. Since today’s value is generally higher than it was whenever Grandma bought that stock, painting, or piece of land, this is a very valuable bit of tax avoidance.
That might be a good idea if the state were proven to be efficient, but historically we can generally see the opposite to be true.
>Let’s start with some basic moral observations: Once you are dead, you no longer have a voting interest in what goes on in society.
Its not about the dead having a voting interest in society its about allowing the living to be free to determine how their assets are used in the future.
>your interest in how your assets get disposed of after you’re no longer using them is minimal
The interest exists prior to that - namely that having the freedom to dispose of your assets how you like is a key motivator in ones decision to accumulate and distribute them.
Think of how spending patterns would change for instance if money expired every few years.
>Society does not have an interest in your desire to ensure that your children are better off than other children.
Ask yourself what society is and think about what happens when you attack the foundations of it denying individuals the ability to act according to their natural affections and punishing people for thinking about the future.
>But society’s job
Why should we hold that society has a fixed purpose beyond what the individuals who compose and guide it decide on?
>And its aim should be for a society of equal opportunity to succeed and get rich.
Why?
> On a moral level, I’d be perfectly comfortable with a 100 percent tax on anything you haven’t passed on before your death.
So a pregnant women's husband dies in a car accident is it a good and moral thing to kick her and her children out of the family home, take her husbands wedding ring and car?
Do you think such a system is going to inspire long term thinking and independence?
>Now we’ll add in a policy reason for the estate tax: Without it, inheritance becomes a mass tax-avoidance scheme.
You talk as if tax is a good end in itself.
The tribal society in my example can instead be a town with trade and even currency.
Why does this change things?
Because in more complex societies which have currency and non tangible notions of property wealth, how people choose to distribute wealth plays an important role.
In your example the dude just sits around eating effectively destroying wealth , in societies like ours he plays a distributive role as he has to pay producers and services providers for the goods and services he needs/wants.
In a tribe such a person destroys wealth however in our times all that happens is that the wealth is distributed differently .
>But society’s job is all children, not specific children who are lucky enough to have hit the genetic lottery.
Under ideal circumstances that might be true, but back in the real world society a shit. Considering all the homeless children I doubt that money will actually go to where it is needed. You might argue a small proportion does, but then those children will be raised to be just as shitty and contribute to this "society".
>claims the left is based in ideas that don't work
>advocates supply-side economics
What did he mean by this?
>Hardworking parents should be able to leave their offspring well off
But why?
Luther would not consider most American Christians to be Christians at all.
In fact, he'd probably try to have them beaten in public.
christianitytoday.com
>he plays a distributive role as he has to pay producers and services providers for the goods and services he needs/wants
It's literally the same thing. Paying someone isn't working. He is not contributing anything to society, his property is.
Financial derivatives are trillions worth of the economy. Yet they have no intrinsic value other than move money around. Yet you can get rich by moving money around without doing anything of real value.
That's not the same at all
Money inherited from your parents is not the same as collecting tribute for your dad's accomplishment