Is all wealth truly "earned"?

[Alcon]

Strongly agree. Accidentally voted agree, though.

[Schmitz in 1972]

1 Timothy 6:10  -  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

Note the verse uses "a root" rather than "the root" and "all kinds of evil" rather than "all evil"

[nclib]

Strongly agree, because the word used was 'many'.

If it said 'most', I would agree, but not strongly.

[Nym90]

Strongly agree, because the word used was 'many'.

If it said 'most', I would agree, but not strongly.

Good point. The world "many", to me, implies a reasonably high percentage, but could still definitely be less than a majority.

[Nym90]

... but I still feel that it's fair that they should pay a higher rate of taxes to compensate for it.

I could agree with this, if and only if the risks of investment could be offset by writing off losses for tax purposes to lower income.  This would level the playing field since the financial gain from labor has no innherent risk.  Unless your boss plays craps withthe payroll money

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

It depends on what you classify as evil, but I can agree with that, not all evil is caused by greed, some is simply because of the volatility of the human emotional and psychological state.  I don't think most serial killers or rapists do their evil for financial gain, they are simply psychotic.

That's true. Serial killers and rapists, however, usually feel power over their victims, and this is generally the cause for their crimes. So perhaps including power along with money as a root of most evil is even more accurate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1 Timothy 6:10  -  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

Note the verse uses "a root" rather than "the root" and "all kinds of evil" rather than "all evil"

I've always liked the way that different versions of the Bible can translate a couple of words differently and result in slightly different meanings all over the place.

The basic meaning isn't actually altered, although the degree of the meaning is.
And then people with different opinions can waste a day argueing about a few small words :-)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The love of money is the root of all evil. That's a world away from MONEY being the root of all evil, which is one of the dumbest things I've heard in my life.

Er... be logical for a couple of seconds (I realise how hard this is for you).
If you accept that a love of money is the root of all evil, you also have to accept that the root of that is greed and money.
And if you accept that, you have to accept that all wealth is NOT truly "earned".

[opebo]

The love of money is the root of all evil. That's a world away from MONEY being the root of all evil, which is one of the dumbest things I've heard in my life.

Er... be logical for a couple of seconds (I realise how hard this is for you).
If you accept that a love of money is the root of all evil, you also have to accept that the root of that is greed and money.
And if you accept that, you have to accept that all wealth is NOT truly "earned".

Since money is just a means of obtaining goods and services, love of money means love of all earthly things - all Real things.  You christians criticise it because you want people to love only imaginary things.  And most people fall for this, hilariously.  No doubt because of lack of real things.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Disagree.

[No more McShame]

Agree, how do you think crdit card comapnies make their cash?  By building a better mousetrap?

Strongly disagree, credit card companies provide a service to consumers by allowing them to make a purchase when they don't want to carry around large sums of cash or their checkbook.  Remember, if paid off it's interest free.  They also provide a service to retailers by giving them a way for their customers to have additional ways to make a purchase for a fee. 

[Beet]

Disagree- as long as it's a mutual transaction.

[dazzleman]

By that logic, robbing banks is a perfectly legitimate business, too. A successful bank robbery certainly takes intelligence, time, and effort, and they usually spend the money and pump it back into the economy.

To answer your question, it's not "earning" it if you are contributing nothing to society. It's always bad for the economy when people are able to get money for producing nothing of value, whether that be through social welfare, crime, or any other means.

The economy will always be most productive when the compensation that people receive for their work is in direct proportion with the amount of value they create for society through their work. The fundamental problem with a completely free market capitalistic economy is that the more money you have, the easier it is to make money. You don't have to be as intelligent, as creative, or as hard working as someone who is poor. So such a society places more value on past accomplishments (which may not even be yours; perhaps hard work, ingenuity, or creativeness that may have occured generations ago within your family) than it does on present day accomplishments. I don't begrudge the rich their wealth, and I believe that they have earned the right to remain rich without having to continue to work hard or be extremely smart; it is appropriate to have a certain degree of reward for past accomplishments, but I don't feel it is right that rich people can continue to get even wealthier and wealthier without the value that they are adding to society being of equal proportion to the amount of money that they earn.

Manipulating money most certainly does contribute to society.  Perhaps it does not take much (physical) effort to invest money, but were it not for all the investments, I am quite sure that none of us would own a home.  Investors keep liquidity in the economy and allow growth through debt financing.  Were it not for these investors, companies and individuals would have to front cash for everything.  It would be very difficult to grow in such an environment, and many good businesses and ideas would go unfilfilled because of lack of funds.  And for those of us that own homes, investors are DIRECTLY responsible for your ability to purchase that property, unless of course you paid cash and have no mortgage.  Securities are sold by the government backed mortgage companies such as Fannie and Freddie, if there were no buyers because there was no profit in it, then there would be no liquidity left in the market, and not nearly as many people could purchase real estate.  Now does all this financial "manipulation" not benefit society?  Of course it does, that is why it pays well.  The market would not pay for nothing, if there was no utility in the action it would not garner a profit.  I believe that this financial side of the market is just as important as the labor side, both are needed for our economy and society to function properly.  I think it is easy for blue collar workers to scoff at how fruitless it is to sit on money and live off interest, but try to imagine our society without it.

Great points, Mikem.  We need both labor and capital.  Without the capital to provide an economic framework, labor would be worth little, and we'd be lucky to live at subsistence level.

Imagine not being able to buy a home without having the full cost of the home in cash.  There are many other examples, but the point is that it is the willingness to provide capital that allows us to have a strong and growing economy (as opposed to a depression-era economy, which was starved for capital) and a high standard of living.

Is wealth distribution always fair?  Of course not.  I think it's insane that athletes and entertainers make the kind of money that they do, and then use it to try to force their ridiculous opinions down our throats.  There are bad side effects to any economic system.  The question is - which produces the best results for the largest number of people.  The answer is - a free market system that contains certain protections for the less powerful.

[© tweed]

Agree, alot of people just inherit money.

[dazzleman]

Agree, alot of people just inherit money.

That's true, but I think that most inherited money is lost within a generation or two.  People who never earned their money don't have any appreciation for it, and usually piss it away over time.  How much time depends on how much money.

[John Dibble]

Agree, alot of people just inherit money.

That's true, but I think that most inherited money is lost within a generation or two.  People who never earned their money don't have any appreciation for it, and usually piss it away over time.  How much time depends on how much money.

Also, that wealth was usually earned by someone at some point in the chain. The question specifies how the fortunes were made, not how the person who currently has it got it.

[Mikem]

Also, that wealth was usually earned by someone at some point in the chain. The question specifies how the fortunes were made, not how the person who currently has it got it.

Totally agree, the wealth was still earned, just not by the person holding it.  There is a difference between wealth and the wealthy.

As far as credit card companies are concerned, they are valuble to society, but even more than just if they are paid off interest free.  Even if accruing debt at a high interest rate is not financially smart, people are willing to pay for it, and thus it is valuble.  Just because something is unwise, does not mean it is worthless.  Demonizing lenders is wrong, they provide the basis for our economy and to downplay that shows a ignorance of economics and a general misunderstanding of the market.

[angus]

Agree!  (of course some folks get rich by milking the system.)

I'd love to be able to figure out how to do that, wouldn't you?

[Mikem]

Agree!  (of course some folks get rich by milking the system.)

I'd love to be able to figure out how to do that, wouldn't you?

I don't think it is so much as knowing how, it's having the liquidity to do so.  The second part is what's in my way.

[Nym90]

Agree!  (of course some folks get rich by milking the system.)

I'd love to be able to figure out how to do that, wouldn't you?

I don't think it is so much as knowing how, it's having the liquidity to do so.  The second part is what's in my way.

Exactly. You have to have money to make money.

So while I would not say that people get money for contributing nothing to society, their contribution is still often times out of proportion to what they receive for it. The more money you have, the esaier it is to make more; you don't have to be as smart, as creative, or as hard-working.

A person who earns $1,000,000/year does not make a positive contribution to society that is equal to that of 100 full time minimum wage workers, even though they earn about 100 times as much; that's what I'm trying to say.

[Mikem]

Exactly. You have to have money to make money.

So while I would not say that people get money for contributing nothing to society, their contribution is still often times out of proportion to what they receive for it. The more money you have, the esaier it is to make more; you don't have to be as smart, as creative, or as hard-working.

A person who earns $1,000,000/year does not make a positive contribution to society that is equal to that of 100 full time minimum wage workers, even though they earn about 100 times as much; that's what I'm trying to say.

Ah, but thats where you are wrong.  It isn't the person that is making the contribution to society DIRECTLY, it is their money that is doing it.  Since they own the money and have rights to economic rents on it, it is in effect the holder of the money that is making the contribution.  Use the "but for" test.

But for the wealthy individuals free liquidity for investment, the ecomomy would have less growth potential.  TRUE

Someone has to own the money, and they are due their rent.

[John Dibble]

Exactly. You have to have money to make money.

So while I would not say that people get money for contributing nothing to society, their contribution is still often times out of proportion to what they receive for it. The more money you have, the esaier it is to make more; you don't have to be as smart, as creative, or as hard-working.

A person who earns $1,000,000/year does not make a positive contribution to society that is equal to that of 100 full time minimum wage workers, even though they earn about 100 times as much; that's what I'm trying to say.

Ah, but thats where you are wrong.  It isn't the person that is making the contribution to society DIRECTLY, it is their money that is doing it.  Since they own the money and have rights to economic rents on it, it is in effect the holder of the money that is making the contribution.  Use the "but for" test.

But for the wealthy individuals free liquidity for investment, the ecomomy would have less growth potential.  TRUE

Someone has to own the money, and they are due their rent.

Indeed. Let us also not forget, that while that guy who makes $1 mil a year seems to be doing nothing that merits that amount, without him those 100 minimum wage workers and more may be out of a job when the company collapses without his leadership and management - a leader can make or break a company, just like leaders of nations can. So, ultimately his contribution can be vast, though not as visible as that of 100 minimum wage workers.

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't have a problem with people earning money if they work hard for it, it's the people who make money doing bugger-all that's where I object

Dave

[Mikem]

I don't have a problem with people earning money if they work hard for it, it's the people who make money doing bugger-all that's where I object

Dave

what the heck is bugger-all?

[angus]

I don't have a problem with people earning money if they work hard for it, it's the people who make money doing bugger-all that's where I object

Dave

what the heck is bugger-all?

it's the thing that Michael Moore thinks George Bush is doing in that "vacation" segment of "Fahrenheit 911."  I.e., nothing.

It's also the subject of a song by Dire Straits in the album "Brothers in Arms."

Now look at them yo-yo's, that's the way you do it
You play the guitar on that MTV
That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free

[angus]

Now that ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Lemme tell ya, them guys ain't dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb