3 ms·

> If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it? Because t

> If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it? Because they did. They put their capital (that they worked for, or their ancestors did) at risk so someone could use it. It's only fair that they get a cut.

jostylr 8y ago
If you trace the history of that capital to a violent past, such as slave owners or government eviction of natives or violent suppression of people's rights or unfair distribution of wealth by the government or redlining, ... is it still fair? If fairness is a concern, one would seem to be led, at the very least, to want to wipe the slate clean for every new individual; no transference of wealth or privilege from one generation to the next. Only self-made people, self-made by above board behaviors, nothing morally or legally questionable. Then sure. Since that has nothing to do with the actual distribution of wealth in the world, saying it is only fair seems an inadequate justification. In general, I have always thought the idea is that successful investors can invest successfully and so giving new capital to such individuals leads to further successful invested in ventures, enriching society further. The same thing goes here. Living individuals have been successful at living, which usually requires great effort and skill by both the individual and the community, and so why not give a bit back to further that journey, a journey that enriches us all.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  If you can trace inherited money back to an immoral past, then it's not fair, IMO. However there really isn't much of this kind of wealth anymore. I completely disagree with you about fairness though. I'm working so my kids can have a comfortable life, that's almost the only point of the work I'm doing, and it's not fair to not let me work for them.

jostylr 8y ago

If you trace the history of that capital to a violent past, such as slave owners or government eviction of natives or violent suppression of people's rights or unfair distribution of wealth by the government or redlining, ... is it still fair? If fairness is a concern, one would seem to be led, at the very least, to want to wipe the slate clean for every new individual; no transference of wealth or privilege from one generation to the next. Only self-made people, self-made by above board behaviors, nothing morally or legally questionable. Then sure. Since that has nothing to do with the actual distribution of wealth in the world, saying it is only fair seems an inadequate justification. In general, I have always thought the idea is that successful investors can invest successfully and so giving new capital to such individuals leads to further successful invested in ventures, enriching society further. The same thing goes here. Living individuals have been successful at living, which usually requires great effort and skill by both the individual and the community, and so why not give a bit back to further that journey, a journey that enriches us all.

TomMarius 8y ago
If you can trace inherited money back to an immoral past, then it's not fair, IMO. However there really isn't much of this kind of wealth anymore. I completely disagree with you about fairness though. I'm working so my kids can have a comfortable life, that's almost the only point of the work I'm doing, and it's not fair to not let me work for them.