Smasharoo wrote:
My statement makes no assumption about how that income was earned. It makes no assumption about *why* that income was earned. It makes no moral judgement at all about whether one type of income is somehow "better" then another. It simply makes the very simple assertion that wealth is accumulated by spending less then one earns. Period.
My mistake. So we agree that wealth is unrellated to hard work, determination, or merit then?
Just as much as it is unrelated to laziness, lack of direction, and lack of social value.
Although I will argue that saving and investing money rather then spending it as soon as you earn it is generally a sign of responsiblity. Which implies that while we can't say anything about someone who inherits wealth, we can say that in order for that wealth to grow, that person has to spend less then he earns (which implies responsiblity and self control), and that the person (or persons) who earned that wealth in the first place *also* did so by choosing to invest their money instead of spending it all.
All we can say with absolute certainty is that people who are wealthy and who remain wealthy do so because they spend less then they earn. People who are *not* wealthy are so because they spend the entirety of their income. Again. I'm not putting *any* moral conditions on this. Clearly, if you are making 20k a year, it's going to be pretty hard to put away money. Clearly also, it's pretty darn easy to put away money when you earn 150M a year.
But your argument wasn't about what people who currently have wealth do with it (I did argue that taxing their wealth amounts to a tax on the things they invest it in and not on them, but that's not what you countered with). You argued that they became wealthy by exploiting the poor in the first place. My argument to that is that wealth is accumulated by spending less then you earn. What you do to gain that income is arbitrarily irrelevant to the accumulation of wealth itself. You simply cannot assume any ethical value for either case.
Let me give you a couple examples:
1. A small business owner. He's an avid gambler and loves to "live big". He pays his workers as close to minimum wage as possible. He provides them with no benefits. He does this to maximize the profits from his business (since it all goes into his pocket, right?). But he spends all his money gambling and partying. He is *not* wealthy, because at no time is he accumulating any wealth. He's spending his income and living year to year. Even though his income is higher then that of his employees, he's no more wealthy then they are.
2. A large business tycoon. He's worth billions of dollars. His investment portfolio includes large shares of several large corporations which collectively employ thousands of people. He does live comfortably. In fact, far moreso then the first guy. However, he lives off a fraction of what he earns each year. The remainder is re-invested into banks, and stocks, and new business ventures. He also donates a few million to charities each year. He takes care to look into each investment to ensure that the businesses are solid (ie: not investment scams). He makes sure that all the companies he's got large interests in provide maximum advancement opportunities to their employees, meet all the equal opportunity requirements, and provide good benefits.
Which of these is exploiting the poor Smash? Clearly, the ethical use of power is not related in any way to wealth. Obviously, the small business owner *could* be a paragon of virtue. The tycoon could be a cold-hearted tyrant. But those behaviors are completely unrelated to the amount of wealth they possess.
There is no inherent good or bad to wealth. The closest we can come is the concept of fiscal responsiblity. Generally, those who are wealthy are those who choose to save money instead of spend it. That is *usually* considered a positive trait. Again. We could take two guys each earning 100k in salary. Both earn the same income. Both do the exact same job. The fact that one person saves his income and invests it does not make him evil or bad. It just makes him smart...
And shouldn't he or his children reap the rewards for him saving that money instead of spending it? Personally, I simply don't see what's wrong with that. It's amusing to me how many Liberals have no trouble insisting that we all follow their (in many cases unproven) ideas for saving the environment as a "gift to our children", but demonize the simple practice of saving money to give to your children.
What's next? You going to insist that people who put money away for their children's college funds are evil as well? That's wealth to Smash.
