Author Topic: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"  (Read 9958 times)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7192
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2018, 10:41:56 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2018, 12:34:07 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2018, 12:34:36 PM »
Everyone born in the US was "lucky".

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #53 on: September 08, 2018, 12:38:09 PM »
Everyone born in the US was "lucky".

Relax, Trump is working hard to bring the poorest in America closer to world averages.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #54 on: September 08, 2018, 12:47:12 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Capitalism wasn't designed to concentrate wealth.  Wealth concentration is an effect of capitalism. 

Taking away inheritance would greatly result in a disincentive to accumulate wealth, IMO, along with motive to improve myself.  It would reduce meritocracy.  It is 50% of why I have accumulated wealth.  Taking care of my seedlings is high on my list of things to do in my lifetime.  But, I get your point that my seedlings may be disincentivized to produce.  My seedlings have been taught rather harshly to never depend on anyone but themselves and don't rely on the possibility of inheritance or the lottery :p.  They have heard plenty of times to "go get your own money". I've also told them I'm going to live to 90 so they will be 65 or older and already retired before they "may" even see inheritance.
 
Edit:  I will probably give away most of my wealth to charity upon death.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 12:51:14 PM by Cache_Stash »

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #55 on: September 08, 2018, 12:49:11 PM »
Everyone born in the US was "lucky".

Relax, Trump is working hard to bring the poorest in America closer to world averages.

Income and wealth disparity began growing in the 80's.  It isn't necessarily "politically" driven.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #56 on: September 08, 2018, 12:51:57 PM »
Everyone born in the US was "lucky".

Relax, Trump is working hard to bring the poorest in America closer to world averages.

Income and wealth disparity began growing in the 80's.  It isn't necessarily "politically" driven.

Edit:  But your statement was pretty funny.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #57 on: September 08, 2018, 03:46:46 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Capitalism wasn't designed to concentrate wealth.  Wealth concentration is an effect of capitalism. 

Taking away inheritance would greatly result in a disincentive to accumulate wealth, IMO, along with motive to improve myself.  It would reduce meritocracy.  It is 50% of why I have accumulated wealth.  Taking care of my seedlings is high on my list of things to do in my lifetime.  But, I get your point that my seedlings may be disincentivized to produce.  My seedlings have been taught rather harshly to never depend on anyone but themselves and don't rely on the possibility of inheritance or the lottery :p.  They have heard plenty of times to "go get your own money". I've also told them I'm going to live to 90 so they will be 65 or older and already retired before they "may" even see inheritance.
 
Edit:  I will probably give away most of my wealth to charity upon death.

Eh.  Chicken and egg.  The effect of capitalism is always wealth concentration.  If it didn't concentrate wealth, capitalism wouldn't work.

People who pass wealth to their children do so purely to give their children an unearned advantage.  I get why someone would do it (and agree that it's probably an incentive for some) but it's the single least meritocratic thing you could do for a kid that I can think of.  You're either saying "You need what's mine because I don't want you to try to make it on your own" or "You need what's mine because I don't think you can make it on your own".  The underlying message though, is that they need what they haven't earned.

MrUpwardlyMobile

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
    • The Upwardly Mobile Life
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2018, 05:16:54 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Capitalism wasn't designed to concentrate wealth.  Wealth concentration is an effect of capitalism. 

Taking away inheritance would greatly result in a disincentive to accumulate wealth, IMO, along with motive to improve myself.  It would reduce meritocracy.  It is 50% of why I have accumulated wealth.  Taking care of my seedlings is high on my list of things to do in my lifetime.  But, I get your point that my seedlings may be disincentivized to produce.  My seedlings have been taught rather harshly to never depend on anyone but themselves and don't rely on the possibility of inheritance or the lottery :p.  They have heard plenty of times to "go get your own money". I've also told them I'm going to live to 90 so they will be 65 or older and already retired before they "may" even see inheritance.
 
Edit:  I will probably give away most of my wealth to charity upon death.

Eh.  Chicken and egg.  The effect of capitalism is always wealth concentration.  If it didn't concentrate wealth, capitalism wouldn't work.

People who pass wealth to their children do so purely to give their children an unearned advantage.  I get why someone would do it (and agree that it's probably an incentive for some) but it's the single least meritocratic thing you could do for a kid that I can think of.  You're either saying "You need what's mine because I don't want you to try to make it on your own" or "You need what's mine because I don't think you can make it on your own".  The underlying message though, is that they need what they haven't earned.

Its more like I earned this for you because I love you dear sons and daughters...

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Location: Here & There
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2018, 05:39:25 PM »
That article is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time.

Even Jesus only asked for 10%.

In what passage did Jesus ask for 10%?  I'm unfamiliar with it.

It's the church that wants 10%, not Jesus. Maybe more if you want to buy an indulgence. Pretty sure Jesus is claimed to have said it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.


The wise man advised the rich man to buy a larger needle.  (It was in a sealed document that didn't make it into the Bible.)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2018, 10:02:56 AM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Capitalism wasn't designed to concentrate wealth.  Wealth concentration is an effect of capitalism. 

Taking away inheritance would greatly result in a disincentive to accumulate wealth, IMO, along with motive to improve myself.  It would reduce meritocracy.  It is 50% of why I have accumulated wealth.  Taking care of my seedlings is high on my list of things to do in my lifetime.  But, I get your point that my seedlings may be disincentivized to produce.  My seedlings have been taught rather harshly to never depend on anyone but themselves and don't rely on the possibility of inheritance or the lottery :p.  They have heard plenty of times to "go get your own money". I've also told them I'm going to live to 90 so they will be 65 or older and already retired before they "may" even see inheritance.
 
Edit:  I will probably give away most of my wealth to charity upon death.

Eh.  Chicken and egg.  The effect of capitalism is always wealth concentration.  If it didn't concentrate wealth, capitalism wouldn't work.

People who pass wealth to their children do so purely to give their children an unearned advantage.  I get why someone would do it (and agree that it's probably an incentive for some) but it's the single least meritocratic thing you could do for a kid that I can think of.  You're either saying "You need what's mine because I don't want you to try to make it on your own" or "You need what's mine because I don't think you can make it on your own".  The underlying message though, is that they need what they haven't earned.

Its more like I earned this for you because I love you dear sons and daughters...

I don't really view money as love.  In fact, I've been around many parents who neglected things I'd consider loving in order to provide more money for their children that the children didn't really need.  In those cases, money is the opposite of love.

MrUpwardlyMobile

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
    • The Upwardly Mobile Life
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2018, 03:46:42 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Capitalism wasn't designed to concentrate wealth.  Wealth concentration is an effect of capitalism. 

Taking away inheritance would greatly result in a disincentive to accumulate wealth, IMO, along with motive to improve myself.  It would reduce meritocracy.  It is 50% of why I have accumulated wealth.  Taking care of my seedlings is high on my list of things to do in my lifetime.  But, I get your point that my seedlings may be disincentivized to produce.  My seedlings have been taught rather harshly to never depend on anyone but themselves and don't rely on the possibility of inheritance or the lottery :p.  They have heard plenty of times to "go get your own money". I've also told them I'm going to live to 90 so they will be 65 or older and already retired before they "may" even see inheritance.
 
Edit:  I will probably give away most of my wealth to charity upon death.

Eh.  Chicken and egg.  The effect of capitalism is always wealth concentration.  If it didn't concentrate wealth, capitalism wouldn't work.

People who pass wealth to their children do so purely to give their children an unearned advantage.  I get why someone would do it (and agree that it's probably an incentive for some) but it's the single least meritocratic thing you could do for a kid that I can think of.  You're either saying "You need what's mine because I don't want you to try to make it on your own" or "You need what's mine because I don't think you can make it on your own".  The underlying message though, is that they need what they haven't earned.

Its more like I earned this for you because I love you dear sons and daughters...

I don't really view money as love.  In fact, I've been around many parents who neglected things I'd consider loving in order to provide more money for their children that the children didn't really need.  In those cases, money is the opposite of love.

Money isnt love and nobody is saying it is. Youre advancing a false dichotomy to make a point that isnt salient. 

You work hard to give your children opportunities and experiences that you may not have had.  You dont want them to suffer set backs that you may have suffered.  You dont want your kid to work 120 hour weeks to pay off student loans in a job that carries to much stress that you break into incoherent screaming fits at nothing while commuting. 

blinx7

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2018, 05:48:11 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  The end result of a system that does not control this tendency will always be the same.

That said, some people will work really hard or come up with a great idea and become wealthy from it.  It certainly happens.  At least as many rich people are like the President though . . . they start out with enough money that no matter how badly they screw up, things end up OK.  You cannot assume that a meritocracy exists if people are allowed to pass their wealth on to their children who didn't earn it.

Capitalism wasn't designed to concentrate wealth.  Wealth concentration is an effect of capitalism. 

Taking away inheritance would greatly result in a disincentive to accumulate wealth, IMO, along with motive to improve myself.  It would reduce meritocracy.  It is 50% of why I have accumulated wealth.  Taking care of my seedlings is high on my list of things to do in my lifetime.  But, I get your point that my seedlings may be disincentivized to produce.  My seedlings have been taught rather harshly to never depend on anyone but themselves and don't rely on the possibility of inheritance or the lottery :p.  They have heard plenty of times to "go get your own money". I've also told them I'm going to live to 90 so they will be 65 or older and already retired before they "may" even see inheritance.
 
Edit:  I will probably give away most of my wealth to charity upon death.

Eh.  Chicken and egg.  The effect of capitalism is always wealth concentration.  If it didn't concentrate wealth, capitalism wouldn't work.

People who pass wealth to their children do so purely to give their children an unearned advantage.  I get why someone would do it (and agree that it's probably an incentive for some) but it's the single least meritocratic thing you could do for a kid that I can think of.  You're either saying "You need what's mine because I don't want you to try to make it on your own" or "You need what's mine because I don't think you can make it on your own".  The underlying message though, is that they need what they haven't earned.

Its more like I earned this for you because I love you dear sons and daughters...

Or: 

Here is a head-start on your self-actualization.  Now, don't mess it up and use it to improve your life and your community. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2018, 06:12:32 PM »
I get the sentiment.  I feel it for my son too.  But you have to admit that giving your kid an unearned advantage (whatever you happen to call it . . . love, an opportunity, a head-start on self-actualization) totally flies in the face of a meritocracy.

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Location: Here & There
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2018, 07:07:43 PM »
In my opinion, if we took away all the wealth in America and redistributed it equally to all the 380 Million people, in 30 years the money would all end up with the same distribution as it was before the redistribution.

I might agree that we would end up with a similar distribution, but we definitely would not end up with the same distribution to the same people.  Your ranking on the global wealth list has almost nothing to do with how hard you work, and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth. 

"Our meritocracy" is a self-satisfied joke, a pleasing lie we tell ourselves to justify the gross privilege we enjoy.  You are not rich because you are superior, you are rich because your are lucky.  Just because other lucky people have thrown it all away does not mean that you aren't incredibly lucky, compared to street orphans in Indonesia, or farmers in Chad, or basically anyone in North Korea.


Life isn't fair for anyone.  Luck plays a major role in all of our lives. 


Our race, gender, citizenship, IQ, genetics, height, natural abilities, blood type, sexual preference, birth date, etc........ are all things that can work for or against us.   


Does a person that is naturally better at math and science deserve a higher paying job?  Does that person deserve to make less money than a person that is 6'11" and is good at basketball? 


Corporations never die and can't be imprisoned for breaking laws.  Are they fair?  Is it fair that we can buy shares of corporations and profit from their unfair advantages? 


How are any of these things more fair than a self-made person leaving the assets that they have personally accumulated in their lifetime to whomever they choose? 


What wonderful things do you thing the government would do with all of the extra funds that a 100% death tax would provide? 
[size=78%]  [/size]

MrUpwardlyMobile

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
    • The Upwardly Mobile Life
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2018, 08:14:59 PM »
I get the sentiment.  I feel it for my son too.  But you have to admit that giving your kid an unearned advantage (whatever you happen to call it . . . love, an opportunity, a head-start on self-actualization) totally flies in the face of a meritocracy.

People are equal in their rights, not their means.  You will always have more than some and less than others.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: "Its basically just immoral to be rich"
« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2018, 05:34:51 AM »
I get the sentiment.  I feel it for my son too.  But you have to admit that giving your kid an unearned advantage (whatever you happen to call it . . . love, an opportunity, a head-start on self-actualization) totally flies in the face of a meritocracy.

Not if my "kid" doesn't get anything until he is 65 years of age.  There is no advantage from inheritance unless it happens upfront.  Not at the end of life.