ADVERTISEMENT

2/3+ of Americans favor 2% wealth tax!

For you and me.... yes. We are smart enough to know what to do with big chunks of money ..... and it clouds our judgment.

I used to think like you did too.... went doesn't everyone understand how to do this.

Then I actually spent time with the general public.... and hopefully not even the "true" general public
... just people that had pro level jobs.

What I've come to find our that is literally nobody but people in finance, accounting, etc has the dirtiest clue how to most efficiently invest in anything.

We've basically thrown people to the wolves and say you should know how to do this. It's absurd.
I disagree somewhat with a part of what you posted: "literally nobody but people in finance, accounting, etc has the dirtiest clue how to most efficiently invest in anything."

It's not just that people have to figure out how to invest -- after you (think you have) figured it out, it takes a bizillion hours each week to manage investments properly at any level of value. People get fatigued and discouraged when they try to spend an hour each week reading spreadsheets etc. for each stock they own (as recommended by Jim Cramer) and a typical mutual fund probably buys into 20-30 major stocks, so do the math. Learning the "dirtiest clue", as you put it, is only part of the task -- implementation of the knowledge is the rest.

But I agree entirely with your observation, "We've basically thrown people to the wolves and say you should know how to do this." Average workers are intimidated by the very terms "stock market" and "mutual fund" and, instead of learning sound investment techniques, would rather spend time playing with their children/grandchildren (or bailing them out of jail). Although I think people with average reading ability (*** by reading standards of 1980 and earlier only; not by today's reading standards) can manage their investments well, many of them have zero interest in spending hours each week doing so. Whoever caused the abandonment of the oldfashioned pension system in favor of the current 401(k) system has indeed thrown them to the wolves.

The wolves you mentioned gave a good chance of feasting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
People get fatigued and discouraged when they try to spend an hour each week reading spreadsheets etc. for each stock they own
But I agree entirely with your observation, "We've basically thrown people to the wolves and say you should know how to do this." Average workers are intimidated by the very terms "stock market" and "mutual fund"
No one expects the average wage earner at any level to "manage" their portfolios as you describe. The key is to get them to buy in in the first place and to leave them (the stocks) alone. Best to not even pay any attention to what's in them, so as to stop people from being tempted to borrow against them or <shudder> cash them in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
I regret that I cannot describe the details. Perhaps they carry bundles of dollar from treasury to the SS offices. I can tell you the SS folk then transfer the self same dollars to retirees. This is done by bank transfers It is happening now,. however it is done, and the money. ends in the hands of ss pensioners. In time all the the funds in the SS trust fund will end up in the hands of retirees -all two trillion. No matter how much you call government
bonds IOUs or assert that what is happening cannot happen, it will happen--indeed has been happening since 2010--and distorting fats will not change that.
The government of course maintains different accounts, and transfers funds between them. In the end the money including interest ends up in SS retires hands.
The redemption of the SS bonds does not increase the national debt. You claim to understand personal finances, but don,'t seem to know how debt is routinely re-financed. A 100 bond is redeemed. this reduces debt by 100. but the government is then short 100 dollars, So it issues another 100 dollar bond, and the debt is the same, (There is some debate among authorities on how the debt to SS should be treated for accounting ;purposes, but I have not attempted to follow it.) i
By stating that what is true is not true because it does not reflect. your view is not admirable. It does not change the fact that because you do not want it to be true nor does your desire to hae truth not be trurh change things.. I want to learn. I read about at the federal thrift plan. It is exceptional good.
There is much that is wrong w/ ss. Denying reality does nothing to address them.
It changes from intragovernmental debt to public debt and that is a problem as the public debt increases.
 
No one expects the average wage earner at any level to "manage" their portfolios as you describe. The key is to get them to buy in in the first place and to leave them (the stocks) alone. Best to not even pay any attention to what's in them, so as to stop people from being tempted to borrow against them or <shudder> cash them in.
Again I disagree somewhat. My experience is far different about the expectations for employees to manage their own 401(k)'s.

Once per year, my employers have had these meetings where the manager stands up there with charts and printouts and explains how to pick mutual funds according to type and "style" of funds, ROI, distributions, last year's performance, Morningstar ratings, why you should balance your investments every quarter, etc. Basic stuff, admittedly, but that's more detailed than what you suggested the employees are expected to do. But you're right that the first goal is to get employees to participate in the first place so they can claim the employer's matching contribution.
 
No you pay SS taxes now so you can get SS in the future (I agree that when I was working I paid in SS taxes so other people could get it then). I understand what you're saying but what you get in the future is based on what you pay in when you're working.

"Once us Boomers die off and the system comes back to "equilibrium" (for lack of a better term), the pressure should come off."

Have you seen stats supporting this. I've never seen any but I've never looked because I'd just never thought of it that way. Interesting thought.
No, you pay SS now so others can get benefits now. End of story.

Others will pay in the future so you can get benefits in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
No, you pay SS now so others can get benefits now. End of story.

Others will pay in the future so you can get benefits in the future.
I know that is the way it is now and the way it started BUT there was a LOT more income than expenditures for years and if that had been invested/saved rather than spent there would be lots of money in the fund and wouldn't have to keep increasing SS taxes to pay the current crop.

Just look at the table I linked earlier.... They took enough in the first year (1937) to pay thru 1944 (approximately) so the people paying into the system in 1938 thru 1944) were NOT paying SS then so others could get benefits then because the money was already there.
 
Last edited:
I know that is the way it is now and the way it started BUT there was a LOT more income than expenditures for years and if that had been invested/saved rather than spent there would be lots of money in the fund and wouldn't have to keep increasing SS taxes to pay the current crop.
It was invested.
 
Jealous of what? I've never seen anything to suggest that the extremely rich are any happier than average Americans.

I think most people just see it as a simple issue of fairness. If a handful of people are going to hoard most of the money, it's fair that they get stuck with most of the bill.
Exactly how do the super rich “hoard” wealth? Do you think they convert all their wealth to Benjamins and stuff their mattresses with it? Anywhere they put their wealth, it will be in circulation and contributing to the economy.

And when you consider people like Bezos, whose wealth is all Amazon stock value, much of his wealth isn’t liquid anyhow. His wealth isn’t a result of making widgets, his wealth is a result of markets, funded by the fed monetizing government debt, which debt causes more money in circulation.

Wealth really can’t be hoarded at all.
 
Exactly how do the super rich “hoard” wealth? Do you think they convert all their wealth to Benjamins and stuff their mattresses with it? Anywhere they put their wealth, it will be in circulation and contributing to the economy.

And when you consider people like Bezos, whose wealth is all Amazon stock value, much of his wealth isn’t liquid anyhow. His wealth isn’t a result of making widgets, his wealth is a result of markets, funded by the fed monetizing government debt, which debt causes more money in circulation.

Wealth really can’t be hoarded at all.

In 2017 the uber wealthy people were buying art, wine, watches, coins, jewelry, cars, stamps. Since I doubt they are buying chevy's, not a lot of jobs. And we can debate how many jobs are created from derivative investment vs traditional manufacturing.

Chart in link below about luxury investments, especially art. There have been a lot of stories the past couple years about how much work by people link Banksy is going for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...ch-people-invested-more-in-art-than-wine/amp/
 
imrs.php
Wealth really can’t be hoarded at all.
... And yet it is hoarded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/
 
In 2017 the uber wealthy people were buying art, wine, watches, coins, jewelry, cars, stamps. Since I doubt they are buying chevy's, not a lot of jobs. And we can debate how many jobs are created from derivative investment vs traditional manufacturing.

Chart in link below about luxury investments, especially art. There have been a lot of stories the past couple years about how much work by people link Banksy is going for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...ch-people-invested-more-in-art-than-wine/amp/
I suppose investing in collectables is a way to hoard wealth. While I haven't done the research, my impression is that the amount of wealth tied up in collectables minuscule compared to total wealth. In any event, I have toured Phil Anschutz's western art collection several times, as well as the art and car collections of other filthy rich individuals. I enjoy all of them.
 
Last edited:

I don't know how that pie chart relates to the hoarding issue. Moreover, that's a pretty worthless article. Look at the posts about collecting art for example. If a filthy rich person buys a piece of art for a million, and increases in value to 2 million, his wealth position relative to the others has increased, but the others haven't lost any wealth just cuz the art has doubled in value.
 
To me you don't have to be what I would consider really wealthy to be in the top 1% yet people throw this around like people in the top 1% are super rich. Maybe they are relative to where a lot of people are but making the top 1% is definitely within the range of a lot of people. According to this article you only have to get to a net worth of a little over 10 million dollars and that's within the reach of a lot of people if they save and invest.
 
To me you don't have to be what I would consider really wealthy to be in the top 1% yet people throw this around like people in the top 1% are super rich. Maybe they are relative to where a lot of people are but making the top 1% is definitely within the range of a lot of people. According to this article you only have to get to a net worth of a little over 10 million dollars and that's within the reach of a lot of people if they save and invest.

well, they can always apply for food stamps.

and by "a lot of people", obviously you mean 1% of people.
 
well, they can always apply for food stamps.

and by "a lot of people", obviously you mean 1% of people.
No I mean people who save and don't have to have every thing that everyone else has. Like I mentioned before I have a first cousin that never made over $60,000/year that is worth around 3.6 million dollars and he had to retire around 54 because of a disability so it easy to extrapolate out to a working couple making it into the top 1%. My cousin never took big chances with his money either.... invested in the stock market in well known companies and did it consistently.
 
No I mean people who save and don't have to have every thing that everyone else has. Like I mentioned before I have a first cousin that never made over $60,000/year that is worth around 3.6 million dollars and he had to retire around 54 because of a disability so it easy to extrapolate out to a working couple making it into the top 1%. My cousin never took big chances with his money either.... invested in the stock market in well known companies and did it consistently.

i don't know your cousin from Adam and don't have a copy of his financial statement, nor is that germane to the discussion.

if by your own numbers, to qualify as top 1% you need $10 mil in assets, then by definition, the "lots of people" you refer to is to date, 1% of people.

DUH!
 
To me you don't have to be what I would consider really wealthy to be in the top 1% yet people throw this around like people in the top 1% are super rich. Maybe they are relative to where a lot of people are but making the top 1% is definitely within the range of a lot of people. According to this article you only have to get to a net worth of a little over 10 million dollars and that's within the reach of a lot of people if they save and invest.

The median household income in the US is $63.000. That is not a whole lot. Remove taxes and then try to raise a family and investing much becomes difficult.

In my college friends, the biggest difference in wealth is between those that had kids and those that did not. I recall when the first of my group retired at about 50 I had a conversation with another of the group. The other friend had been investing since high school, we sort of made fun of him in college for never having money while working a decent job because he was investing. That friend said he was still years off, he had made about the same as the first friend but had kids which cost him greatly in investing. He is still at Lilly 10 years later.

For most Americans, they need both paychecks but when the kids are little, the second paycheck goes almost entirely to daycare.
 
Bill Gates on the wealth disparity in America:

“I’m for a tax system in which, if you have more money, you pay a higher percentage in taxes. I think the rich should pay more than they currently do, and that includes Melinda and me,” Gates wrote, referring to his wife.

Specifically, he said there should be a higher capital gains tax (a tax on money made on investments), which would disproportionately affect the wealthy. None of the richest people in the world have made their fortunes solely through a salaried job, and for that reason Gates believes the government “should shift more of the tax burden onto capital” rather than labor.

“I don’t see any reason to favor wealth over work the way we do today,” he wrote. It’s “the clearest evidence I’ve seen that the system isn’t fair,” he said.
Mark Cuban is in the article as well:

Billionaire tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban has also highlighted how the difference between the investor class and paid labor is a factor in the wealth gap.

“If someone is only going to be paid by the hour...they’re always going to fall behind,” Cuban told Recode Decode in May. “And income distribution is … [the] disparity is going to get wider and wider.”

While Cuban has called paying taxes “patriotic,” he also suggests founders and owners should distribute stock in the company to employees to bring them into the investor class.

“We as entrepreneurs have got to make a point to give stock to everybody that works for us. Period. End of story. No exceptions, because that’s the only way people are going to get any type of equity appreciation.”​

I have suggested Gates' idea of making taxes on capital gains the same as work. To me, that is the solution even above the wealth tax. Income is income, no matter where it is from. I am less sure about Cuban's idea, but it sounds like a thought that needs looked into.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
Bill Gates on the wealth disparity in America:

“I’m for a tax system in which, if you have more money, you pay a higher percentage in taxes. I think the rich should pay more than they currently do, and that includes Melinda and me,” Gates wrote, referring to his wife.

Specifically, he said there should be a higher capital gains tax (a tax on money made on investments), which would disproportionately affect the wealthy. None of the richest people in the world have made their fortunes solely through a salaried job, and for that reason Gates believes the government “should shift more of the tax burden onto capital” rather than labor.

“I don’t see any reason to favor wealth over work the way we do today,” he wrote. It’s “the clearest evidence I’ve seen that the system isn’t fair,” he said.
Mark Cuban is in the article as well:

Billionaire tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban has also highlighted how the difference between the investor class and paid labor is a factor in the wealth gap.

“If someone is only going to be paid by the hour...they’re always going to fall behind,” Cuban told Recode Decode in May. “And income distribution is … [the] disparity is going to get wider and wider.”

While Cuban has called paying taxes “patriotic,” he also suggests founders and owners should distribute stock in the company to employees to bring them into the investor class.

“We as entrepreneurs have got to make a point to give stock to everybody that works for us. Period. End of story. No exceptions, because that’s the only way people are going to get any type of equity appreciation.”​

I have suggested Gates' idea of making taxes on capital gains the same as work. To me, that is the solution even above the wealth tax. Income is income, no matter where it is from. I am less sure about Cuban's idea, but it sounds like a thought that needs looked into.

What is the problem a wealth tax is intended to solve? If it's to help lower and middle income folks move up the social-economic ladder, I'm not buying it. While a theoretical case can be made that wealth-tax-funded transfer payments to the lower and middle income people can improve lives, that case doesn't support the notion that lower and middle income people will get higher paychecks. Microsoft and Gates have made gobs and gobs of money, and increased their capital accounts several times over by outsourcing tech jobs overseas and by lobbying for and taking advantage of lenient H1(b) immigration programs for tech workers to come here. If Gates is serious about attacking the evils of income and wealth maldistribution, the way forward is not with new and more taxes. The way forward is to increase employment and good jobs here. That means stop depressing compensation and depressing job growth by taking employment opportunities overseas.
 
What is the problem a wealth tax is intended to solve? If it's to help lower and middle income folks move up the social-economic ladder, I'm not buying it. While a theoretical case can be made that wealth-tax-funded transfer payments to the lower and middle income people can improve lives, that case doesn't support the notion that lower and middle income people will get higher paychecks. Microsoft and Gates have made gobs and gobs of money, and increased their capital accounts several times over by outsourcing tech jobs overseas and by lobbying for and taking advantage of lenient H1(b) immigration programs for tech workers to come here. If Gates is serious about attacking the evils of income and wealth maldistribution, the way forward is not with new and more taxes. The way forward is to increase employment and good jobs here. That means stop depressing compensation and depressing job growth by taking employment opportunities overseas.

I am going to theorize that Gates and others would say they can't use American labor and reach the price point they need to reach (or for Jobs, it was the massed numbers China could throw at a problem to allow Jobs the ability to tinker until the last possible second). Both with Office and Windows, Microsoft has free competitors. There probably is a price point that they really cannot exceed.

Now, to be fair, I don't disagree with your point that we need more American labor. But I will point out that even Trump used foreign labor to build Trump Tower because he had a price point he did not want to go over. You own stocks in corporations, do you really want to tell them the message you are saying? Are you personally willing to have your investment income reduced if corporations hire more Americans and fewer immigrants? It seems to me most investors are overwhelmingly opposed to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
I am going to theorize that Gates and others would say they can't use American labor and reach the price point they need to reach (or for Jobs, it was the massed numbers China could throw at a problem to allow Jobs the ability to tinker until the last possible second). Both with Office and Windows, Microsoft has free competitors. There probably is a price point that they really cannot exceed.

Now, to be fair, I don't disagree with your point that we need more American labor. But I will point out that even Trump used foreign labor to build Trump Tower because he had a price point he did not want to go over. You own stocks in corporations, do you really want to tell them the message you are saying? Are you personally willing to have your investment income reduced if corporations hire more Americans and fewer immigrants? It seems to me most investors are overwhelmingly opposed to that.

Gates is the richest guy in the world. The price point argument does not impress me. If Microsoft didn’t make him so filthy wealthy, I’d be more receptive to that argument.

Using foreign tech workers has ramifications far beyond Microsoft and other organizations who use them. As we learned during the race to the moon, that effort caused an uptick in STEM education and good tech jobs in general. This was a national benefit. Using foreign tech workers deprives us of that benefit. Many of the students in our STEM graduate programs are foreign students. Meanwhile, we have huge numbers of domestic students dropping out of the education system or cruising through in mostly irrelevant disciplines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
Gates is the richest guy in the world. The price point argument does not impress me. If Microsoft didn’t make him so filthy wealthy, I’d be more receptive to that argument.

Think about how he got so rich, it was through stock and not pay. Both he and Cuban points out there is a disparity between those who labor for money and those who invest.

Person A grosses $75,000 per year all in investments. Person B grosses $75,000 all by labor. Who has the higher net? Why is that?
 
Bill Gates on the wealth disparity in America:

“I’m for a tax system in which, if you have more money, you pay a higher percentage in taxes. I think the rich should pay more than they currently do, and that includes Melinda and me,” Gates wrote, referring to his wife.

Specifically, he said there should be a higher capital gains tax (a tax on money made on investments), which would disproportionately affect the wealthy. None of the richest people in the world have made their fortunes solely through a salaried job, and for that reason Gates believes the government “should shift more of the tax burden onto capital” rather than labor.

“I don’t see any reason to favor wealth over work the way we do today,” he wrote. It’s “the clearest evidence I’ve seen that the system isn’t fair,” he said.
Mark Cuban is in the article as well:

Billionaire tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban has also highlighted how the difference between the investor class and paid labor is a factor in the wealth gap.

“If someone is only going to be paid by the hour...they’re always going to fall behind,” Cuban told Recode Decode in May. “And income distribution is … [the] disparity is going to get wider and wider.”

While Cuban has called paying taxes “patriotic,” he also suggests founders and owners should distribute stock in the company to employees to bring them into the investor class.

“We as entrepreneurs have got to make a point to give stock to everybody that works for us. Period. End of story. No exceptions, because that’s the only way people are going to get any type of equity appreciation.”​

I have suggested Gates' idea of making taxes on capital gains the same as work. To me, that is the solution even above the wealth tax. Income is income, no matter where it is from. I am less sure about Cuban's idea, but it sounds like a thought that needs looked into.
I have to chuckle at him because I'd be willing to bet that he has all sorts of people helping him to limit the amount of taxes he pays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
I have to chuckle at him because I'd be willing to bet that he has all sorts of people helping him to limit the amount of taxes he pays.

I am sure you are correct. Very much the way I chuckle at Trump for hiring foreign labor. There is a symmetry there.
 
Think about how he got so rich, it was through stock and not pay. Both he and Cuban points out there is a disparity between those who labor for money and those who invest.

Person A grosses $75,000 per year all in investments. Person B grosses $75,000 all by labor. Who has the higher net? Why is that?
But that person could have lost $75,000 just as easily (you should know that from what you said before with your investments.:)) so there is more risk in investing than in a job. Investments like CDs, etc where there is no risk are taxed as ordinary income.
 
Aw, c'mon Marvin, that's easy. It's Makers vs. Takers. You haven't been paying attention.

Investors are just superior human beings, we are lucky they let us have oxygen.

I still love Lincoln's quote(bolding from original site). But I am mot even making the argument labor is superior to capital, I am arguing they are equal. People tell me i am wring, but never a coherent why.

Lincoln:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
 
But that person could have lost $75,000 just as easily (you should know that from what you said before with your investments.:)) so there is more risk in investing than in a job. Investments like CDs, etc where there is no risk are taxed as ordinary income.

And the person with the job could lose their job, they could get injured or killed at work. They are certainly losing their finite time for the money.
 
Think about how he got so rich, it was through stock and not pay. Both he and Cuban points out there is a disparity between those who labor for money and those who invest.

Person A grosses $75,000 per year all in investments. Person B grosses $75,000 all by labor. Who has the higher net? Why is that?

I’m well aware of the difference and discussed it here often. The reason for the difference of course is the 16th amendment. Capital gains requires a commercial transaction. Transactions are a favored economic occurrence and inhibiting those will have adverse consequences.

The other part of your point is the increase in book value of assets is the result of inflation, or the result of a highly profitable company. This latter point goes to my point about depressing labor costs by using foreign labor.

Finally a wealth tax is taxing assets with no economic activity concerning that asset. There are many problems with that tax which we have discussed.
 
Last edited:
And the person with the job could lose their job, they could get injured or killed at work. They are certainly losing their finite time for the money.
But if you lose your job you don't lose money.... In other words if you had $75,000 and lost your job you still have $75,000 but you could invest that $75,000 and end up with nothing.
 
Investors are just superior human beings, we are lucky they let us have oxygen.

I still love Lincoln's quote(bolding from original site). But I am mot even making the argument labor is superior to capital, I am arguing they are equal. People tell me i am wring, but never a coherent why.

Lincoln:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

if that quote is accurate, I strongly disagree.

if I have an idea for a better widget but my idea needs labor to build, is my idea capital? If I take a second mortgage on my home, thereby putting my right to shelter at risk, to buy some equipment to make the widget do I have capital at that point? If after a couple of years my widget is wildly successful and I own its value as a going business, is that “blue sky” capital? I’d agree if I incorporate and sell you some stock so I can expand and build more widgets, your stock is capital. Is it fair to say that your capital is the fruit of labor?
 
I am sure you are correct. Very much the way I chuckle at Trump for hiring foreign labor. There is a symmetry there.
Oh I agree.... there's a lot of "Do as I say and not as I do".... plenty to go around everywhere.
 
But if you lose your job you don't lose money.... In other words if you had $75,000 and lost your job you still have $75,000 but you could invest that $75,000 and end up with nothing.

Yes, but as I said, I lose my time forever. There is no getting back the 40 hours I spent working. In my example, both A and B may love fishing more than anything in the world. The investor can easily fish from sunup to sundown almost every day. That isn't possible for the worker. Not assuming the worker wishes to keep his job. The investor gets to do the items that pleases them, the worker gets to do what their boss tells them to do. The worker is literally trading in a significant part of their life for their money. One thing is true, I see my coworkers more than I do my family. That is the trade off. I would gladly accept the risk of losing money. Heck, I lost a ton of money (in my world) from my retirement accounts in 2008.

It is said you are paid for what you know, that is a lie. I've never met anyone who is called in to do a brain dump and then is sent home with their salary. You are paid to give up part of your life to the company so the investor can live without giving up part of their life.
 
Investors are just superior human beings, we are lucky they let us have oxygen.

I still love Lincoln's quote(bolding from original site). But I am mot even making the argument labor is superior to capital, I am arguing they are equal. People tell me i am wring, but never a coherent why.

Lincoln:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

I don't believe capital gains taxes have changed dramatically in the last century. Don't believe they were ever more than the 25-28% range, at maximum. So not sure we can point to that tax rate as being the issue.

There is a decent economic argument to be made that capital gains taxes are - in some cases - double taxation (since C corps already pay income tax) and that they stifle economic growth by creating impediments to moving capital quickly from unproductive investments to productive ones.

I see this at the micro level when individual investors have large capital gains built up in either funds or individual stocks.... that they no longer really want to hold, but feel stuck in them because liquidating them and reinvesting elsewhere would trigger a large tax bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
People tell me i am wring, but never a coherent why.

Lincoln:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

This isn't Abe's 1800s here. I think times are just a bit different, don't you? Look at the world's largest companies, for example.

Besides, Lincoln was simply home-schooled and/or self-taught. Not that relatable to today's complex world.
 
This isn't Abe's 1800s here. I think times are just a bit different, don't you? Look at the world's largest companies, for example.

Besides, Lincoln was simply home-schooled and/or self-taught. Not that relatable to today's complex world.

We might wonder if some of the changes are improvements. I got a big kick out of the story that the last civil war veteran to graduate with an undergrad degree was the dean of the law school at the time. He had studied under a lawyer which was the practice of the era. Would law, or other professions, be damaged by returning to that?

While I presented Lincoln's quote, I am really arguing for equality and not supremacy. The investor is no more or less noble than the worker. The communist view that the worker reigns supreme and the opposite view that the capitalist reigns supreme are both wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT