Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
doesn't mean that the rentier under discussion is any less a parasite. Upon the entire societal structure/infrastructure/economy.
Its quite obvious that you don't understand what a parasite is in the context of this argument. A parasite benefits at the expense of the host, in this case, the "entire societal structure/infrastructure/economy".
She is living off the INTEREST of her investments, which means the bulk of her inheritance is being used by whatever financial institution she chose to loan the money out to other people at a higher rate of interest and make money for them.
In addition, she is living of the interest and SPENDING MORE MONEY for goods and services on a 30,000/yr budget plan.
I fail to see how this is living at the expense of the host. In fact, she contributes more than someone who simply makes 30,000 a year and has no savings. She is spending her 30,000 as well as making the bulk of her inheritance available to the financial institution(s) she chose. A person who draws a 30,000 paycheck by punching a clock somewhere is simply paying for goods and services and living hand to mouth. We can get into debate of whether it's lazy or not, I don't know this woman's situation and I won't judge people and situations that are none of my business, unlike you and the OP.
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 04-07-2013 at 10:07 AM..
If I were to inherit millions of dollars or win the lottery tonight, I wouldn't bother calling in the next morning to quit. Work pays the bills. Beyond that, it means nothing to me. There is nothing wrong with that line of thinking.
However, I would be bored out of my mind just sitting around the house all day. If I were in her position, I would spend most of my time traveling and doing volunteer work. But it's her life and she can do what she wants. If I were her, I could care less what other family members have to say about it.
Being able to live your life as you like and having to care what others think is the best feeling in the world.
Again, i think you missed my - and others - point. The sister has a right to live how she lives without having to answer to no-one. She is financially secure, she does not have to ask family members or the government for support. What's the big deal? Simply because you are financially secure and choose to work doesn't mean everybody else should. Isn't that arrogant presumption?
Again, i think you missed my - and others - point. The sister has a right to live how she lives without having to answer to no-one. She is financially secure, she does not have to ask family members or the government for support. What's the big deal? Simply because you are financially secure and choose to work doesn't mean everybody else should. Isn't that arrogant presumption?
No.
You owe it to society to NOT be a giant leech (something nearly half of society can't seem to achieve) and to obey the laws and look out for others.
You do not owe it to society to shlep your ass to work every day if you can somehow afford not to.
If I were her, I would take this opportunity to find a cause I really believed in and put my efforts towards that.
Its quite obvious that you don't understand what a parasite is in the context of this argument. A parasite benefits at the expense of the host, in this case, the "entire societal structure/infrastructure/economy".
She is living off the INTEREST of her investments, which means the bulk of her inheritance is being used by whatever financial institution she chose to loan the money out to other people at a higher rate of interest and make money for them.
In addition, she is living of the interest and this SPENDING MONEY for goods and services.
I fail to see how this is living at the expense of the host. In fact, she contributes more than someone who simply makes 30,000 a year and has no savings. She is spending her 30,000 as well as making the bulk of her inheritance available to the financial institution(s) she chose. A person who draws a 30,000 paycheck is simply
paying for goods and services and living hand to mouth. We can get into debate of whether it's lazy or not, I don't know this woman's situation and I won't judge people
and situations that are none of my business, unlike you or the OP.
That's essentially the "trickle-down" theory.
My response is the same as in my other post. This person is not a entrepreneur or "investor" in the classical sense that we all understand and emotionally vibe to...the 19th century textile mill owner who saved and borrowed and created an empire from nothing. To the extent that they do any work at all in "allocating capital to its most efficient uses", it's in choosing a financial advisor and nodding their heads when he says "we should get into natural gas".
By means of their inherited boodle, they've got a claim to the output of society, built on the backs of the taxpayer and the worker, and, OK, on the real investors and productive capitalists, mainly of yore.
They are parasitic because they've earned nothing. They merely take, justified by the property relations that obtain in today's world.
I really don't get why OP cares so much about his sister does or does not do.
If I were in her shoes I'd quit my job in a minute. Can't say what I would do instead, but it wouldn't be anyone else's business.
I like what I do to an extent, but I ultimately do it to get a paycheck. The pay could be better, but more than that, it takes me away from my family to the extent that I work some holidays, weekends and don't get nearly as much vacation time as I would like. Why would I owe it to society to continue to make those sacrifices if I didn't have to?
Again, i think you missed my - and others - point. The sister has a right to live how she lives without having to answer to no-one. She is financially secure, she does not have to ask family members or the government for support. What's the big deal? Simply because you are financially secure and choose to work doesn't mean everybody else should. Isn't that arrogant presumption?
No one, my friend, "answers to no-one". As George Costanza once said "we're living in a society here".
This goes doubly for folks who have no plausible claim to have created any societal value, outside the standard justification for the rentier repeated several times in this thread.
As long as she isn't sitting on her butt mooching off the government/taxpayers, who cares? It sounds like the rest of the family is jealous that she doesn't have to work.
Exactly.. If she can afford to be independent and not work it's her business.
They are parasitic because they've earned nothing. They merely take, justified by the property relations that obtain in today's world.
Last time I checked, she worked until her mid-30s until she got the inheritance. By that "logic" anyone who is out on disability and all retired people are parasites as well since they are no longer actually earning something.
Quote:
This goes doubly for folks who have no plausible claim to have created any societal value
So who gets to decide who creates societal value and who the "parasites" are? YOU? The OP? The arrogance in this thread is astounding!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly..
If she can afford to be independent and not work it's her business.
