7 ms·

The person with a job and the person "risking" their billions in capital are not comparable.

• chii 6y ago
  from a financial perspective, the job comes with zero (or near zero) monetary risk. The person risking "billions" in capital is taking "billions" in monetary risk (the weighting depending on what the investment is - bonds are less risky than shares, for example).
  • iso1631 6y ago
    And they stand to gain far more than someone working for $20 an hour. Over the last 50 years the values of investments have far far outpaced growth in earnings. If a millionaire doesn't invest and make captial gains, what does he do with his money? Keep it in a box under the bed?
    • chii 6y ago
      > And they stand to gain far more than someone working for $20 an hour. And a lawyer gets paid $200/hr. What are you comparing? I'm not talking about whether it's "fair" that someone can be earning so little when there exists billionairs. That's for the philosophers and social commentators to endless debate. But someone working for $20/hr earns that money, with zero risk of not receiving it after services rendered. Someone investing money is not guaranteed a return. > If a millionaire doesn't invest and make captial gains, what does he do with his money? So you're saying that because said millionaire has "no choice", he would be forced to invest and thus, society could leech more off him?
      • iso1631 6y ago
        I'm asking that if the millionaire was taxed at the same rate then what would he do with his money instead of investing it? Same principle with a lawyer being paid $200 an hour, or an actor on $2000 an hour. Morally I'd say that the millionaire who is rent seeking should be taxed more than those working, but parity would be a start You make investing seem like gambling. Seems that the IRS treat gambling as earned income, not unearned income.