I ain't talking about a guy who runs a successful business and makes himself a few million. I'm talking the Paris Hilton-types who inherit a fortune and then retire. The idle rich. People whose money does all the work while they do nothing and contribute nothing to American productivity. The top 1% are not self-made for the most part.
How are the idle rich bad? And why is it a scarlet letter if your dad or grandpa made your money and not you? That is somehow immoral? And if you don't need support from anyone because you are rich, and you choose not to clock in at a job, what difference does that make? Your $ is at work. It is funding something or someone, somewhere. And that is the goal of every working American that is trying to better themselves. Eventually we would all like our $ to do the heavy lifting. It is the idle poor that are a drain. They contribute neither work, nor investment, and take resources from the rest of us. I don't suggest that the idle rich are admirable in any way, but who cares? It just matters if they kick in. In some capacity.
I never said the idle rich were "bad" or "immoral", I said that they deserve to pay higher taxes, can afford higher taxes, and do not contribute to American productivity.
I believe they should pay a fair amount of tax. What is fair will always be under debate. People who don't have, always want to take from those that do. You can probably afford to pay $10 for a beer, while a college student can probably only afford $.50. I wonder if you would accept that. Probably not. Fact is with taxes, the more you make the more you pay, so perpetuating class warfare is just archaic, though I doubt you will ever stop. It's one of your favorite tunes. And you know this how? You have some secret spreadsheet that shows how rich people invest their money? Or spend it? And doesn't spending money stimulate the economy and maintain growth? Isn't that what the new immaculate govt is proclaiming? I mean that's why we are borrowing additional trillions of $, so we can spend right? How is investment in American business not contributing to American productivity?
Owning a company is certainly contributing to a business, but it offers little human productivity from the owner. Productivity is the measure of the ratio of output production to input effort. Individual productivity is measure by units of labor by a single person versus his production output. The rich who earn their income entirely from owning things without direct involvement have a low individual productivity. Total productivity of a company (including investments) incorporates all the inputs required to make a product or provide a service from the entire vast company. The individual input of the owner is insignificant compared to the other parts of the input effort, so his impact on the total productivity is also low. It's not a condemnation of the the ultra-rich who are not directly involved with the running of a company or their investments. But by definition, they are personally just not adding anything to American productivity. Not all of the rich are the idle rich. Many active company executives may have a significant individual productivity, although many also do not. Like every other productive effort, it requires real work.
By your definition. You are trying to make a distinction between physical contributions of time and effort, and the contribution of investment $. They are different but in no way can you argue that the "idle rich" do not contribute. It is purely tangential. And I would argue that investment is real contribution, but everyone already knows this, despite your claims. Without it in small business, it rarely matters how hard anyone works, as there is no $ to start it up. Your argument fails completely.
Owning something is not a productive effort. I already said it was a contribution to a business, just not to business productivity. Read more carefully. Your inability to understand the definition of productivity is not my problem. I didn't make it up, you can find it yourself if you try.
You originally said: I'd argue that without the jobs that they provide, there would be less people working, and thus the "American productivity" would be lower. That's contributing something to the American productivity.
I'd argue that simply owning a company does nothing to affect the productivity of the company. That company could be unproductive, lose money for everybody, and go bankrupt--and many do. That same company could also be very productive, make money for everybody, and contribute to the US productivity. In neither case does the simple owning of the company affect its productivity. If an owner also runs the company and works to make it effective, then that work may be a significant productivity contribution, as I have mentioned previously. But simply owning its stock does not.
