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.
Yes, the snide tone is usually reserved for your use. Let me state unequivocally that there is no such thing as "unearned income", except to the lazy and stupid.
Welfare is unearned income. It's money just handed to you. You did nothing to earn it whatsoever.
You can only get food stamps if you work so you are "earning" those food stamps.
You can only get unemployment if you worked so you did "earn" that unemployment.
Welfare is unearned income. It's money just handed to you. You did nothing to earn it whatsoever.
You can only get food stamps if you work so you are "earning" those food stamps.
You can only get unemployment if you worked so you did "earn" that unemployment.
You are not looking at 'unearned income' like liberals do. They are speaking of "capital gains" as "unearned income".
If you're going to "correct" the analogy why don't you correct it closer toward reality?
Instead of those 99%'ers being lazy slugs how about they represent the workers that make the knick knacks and widgets. They make them, buy them, sell them, trade them, report them... Fact is their existence revolves around those widgets.
The top earner on the other hand is the lazy slug, doing zero manual labor, adding nothing to the value of those widgets. All that top earner does is skim off a penny or two from the earnings of each of those 99%'ers.
If the top earner leaves there is no loss, in fact the profits of the productive ppl that make and consume widgets increases becuz the free loading "top earner" is no longer taking his cut for doing nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
You've loaded the analogy by saying that Mr. 'Top Earner' is a seller of knickknacks. If we raise his tax rate to the point where he might decide to play golf rather than sell, it's no great loss.
But what happens if Mr. Top Earner is the nation's only farmer. None of the other 99 have the knowledge or ability to farm. In fact let's say that they are all allergic to soil, and would become deathly sick if they even tried to farm. Now what happens if we raise Mr. Top Earner's tax rate to the point where he decides to devote himself to golf?
Last edited by buzzards27; 07-04-2012 at 02:25 PM..
Welfare is unearned income. It's money just handed to you. You did nothing to earn it whatsoever.
I disagree. I see it all the time around where I live. Children of the wealthy, who worked no harder than picking the right parents, get a BMW on their 17th birthday and plenty of pocket cash. Their income is unearned. So, let's not always bash the welfare queens.
If you're going to "correct" the analogy why don't you correct it closer toward reality?
Instead of those 99%'ers being lazy slugs how about they represent the workers that make the knick knacks and widgets. They make them, buy them, sell them, trade them, report them... Fact is their existence revolves around those widgets.
The top earner on the other hand is the lazy slug, doing zero manual labor, adding nothing to the value of those widgets. All that top earner does is skim off a penny or two from the earnings of each of those 99%'ers.
If the top earner leaves there is no loss, in fact the profits of the productive ppl that make and consume widgets increases becuz the free loading "top earner" is no longer taking his cut for doing nothing.
All analogies walk with a limp. The 'robinson crusoe' anologies like this one seem irresistible in economics and and are problematic in a debate context because they are always so easy to blast apart.
That said, I disagree with your correction 'closer toward reality' of my correction. It's basically the 'physical fallacy,' that only physical, or manufacturing-type activities really 'add value.' Suppose the top earner is a brilliant social scientist who comes up with a new way to organize society such that everyone is a millionaire, everyone has a big house, nice car, etc.. He did 'zero manual labor.' He probably just sat thinking, and analyzing reams of data. But did he 'add value.' Yes.
All analogies walk with a limp. The 'robinson crusoe' anologies like this one seem irresistible in economics and and are problematic in a debate context because they are always so easy to blast apart.
That said, I disagree with your correction 'closer toward reality' of my correction. It's basically the 'physical fallacy,' that only physical, or manufacturing-type activities really 'add value.' Suppose the top earner is a brilliant social scientist who comes up with a new way to organize society such that everyone is a millionaire, everyone has a big house, nice car, etc.. He did 'zero manual labor.' He probably just sat thinking, and analyzing reams of data. But did he 'add value.' Yes.
you disagree with my move toward reality, but then you wander off into bizzaro world, lol.
That has gotta be the most ridiculous post of the day. Really, everyone is going to be a millionaire???? How does that work, we know that in a capitalist society some are winners and most are losers. It cannot work otherwise, if EVERYONE is a millionaire it is likely that that is about where the poverty level will be.
you disagree with my move toward reality, but then you wander off into bizzaro world, lol.
That has gotta be the most ridiculous post of the day. Really, everyone is going to be a millionaire???? How does that work, we know that in a capitalist society some are winners and most are losers. It cannot work otherwise, if EVERYONE is a millionaire it is likely that that is about where the poverty level will be.
what evs. It's an analogy and a hypothetical. You know, like the one you posted re a nation of 99 people buying and selling widgets.
Anyway, I think you just proved my point about the problems of these 'Robinson Crusoe' analogies in economics. They are fine in a econ textbook where the object is to shed light, but in an internet debate, where the object is to wreck your opponent, all it takes is one side willing to adopt the tactics of willful ignorance (invariably combined with throwing of insults & name calling, as seen here), and the debate collapses.
No, you're just being ridiculous. Who built all those homes for the 99%'ers, them or that top earner? There's hypotheticals and there's being silly. You're being the latter. Wealthy "thinkers" add little or nothing to society. A farmer doesn't need a wealthy landowner to tell him his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
what evs. It's an analogy and a hypothetical. You know, like the one you posted re a nation of 99 people buying and selling widgets.
Anyway, I think you just proved my point about the problems of these 'Robinson Crusoe' analogies in economics. They are fine in a econ textbook where the object is to shed light, but in an internet debate, where the object is to wreck your opponent, all it takes is one side willing to adopt the tactics of willful ignorance (invariably combined with throwing of insults & name calling, as seen here), and the debate collapses.
No, you're just being ridiculous. Who built all those homes for the 99%'ers, them or that top earner? There's hypotheticals and there's being silly. You're being the latter. Wealthy "thinkers" add little or nothing to society. A farmer doesn't need a wealthy landowner to tell him his job.
You say the farmer 'doesn't need a wealthy landowner.' Actually he does, or more precisely he needs a structure by which farm land can be efficiently made available to farmers. Read up on the way that farmland was dispensed in the 19th century US. It was one of the key factors by which the US became such a great breadbasket. And it was devised by the 'wealthy thinkers' that you claim add nothing.
I disagree. I see it all the time around where I live. Children of the wealthy, who worked no harder than picking the right parents, get a BMW on their 17th birthday and plenty of pocket cash. Their income is unearned. So, let's not always bash the welfare queens.
No wonder you feel the way you do about the rich.
Might I suggest you just ignore the rich and stop asking them who bought their car and who gives them allowance ? It's just eating you up inside.
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.
