Comments for entry "Wealth Creators versus Wealth Consumers" at Dilbert.com Blog

Comment from Riprake

SunAMCSTE_Rthth

While the general idea of the article is correct, "wealth" is relative to an individual's frame of reference. One man's trash truly is another's treasure, and vice-versa. A lawyer's education is treasure to a lawyer, and trash to a guy who'd rather do manual labor. While I agree we ought to cut out the class-warfare rhetoric, therefore, I disagree with any plan that allows the government to impose any supposed one-size-fits-all definition of "wealth" on the rest of us. Also, as any number of rich and poor can tell you, hard work does not automatically equate to productivity: most of our politicians are very hard at work grafting and taxing and regulating the rest of us to death every way they can; how is that productive? The real solution is to abolish all forms of income tax altogether, as they're nothing but a tax on productivity, and replace them with some kind of consumption tax instead. That way, productive people will be encouraged to produce as much as they can while lazy parasites (those "net consumers") will be encouraged to be more discreet in their sponging on the productive.

Comment from Nemo666

SunAMCSTE_Rthth

I don't know that "wealth" is quite the right word, since it's too easily confused with "profit" or simply "money". Perhaps "creates net benefit" would be more accurate, since it covers works of art and science that may have little direct economic benefit, but is is still a little awkward as a term.

Comment from MrDrowzy

WedPMCSTE_Rthth

people at the top hoard wealth by avoiding tax and paying their employees unfair wages. a gardener can work all day but still only come home with $60 where as a PA for some banker might earn more then that in an hour for pushing paper. frankly its appalling, and your article suggesting rich people want to heal the world rather then continue to line their pockets is misleading and wrong; least we forget that the money we lose through benefit cheats is only a fraction of that we lose from tax avoidance. u tink bout dat

Comment from MrDrowzy

WedPMCSTE_Rthth

Comment from BrianGlenn

WedPMCSTE_Rthth

There is a clean way to discern who are the "net wealth creators," the workers and doers of society. Yes, students are already defined as such as they are creating human capital in hopes of bettering their lifelong earnings. As for labels for everyone based on net wealth creation, how about a beautiful blue "W" tattoo on the palms of all the winners, workers, wealth creators. And a dark scarlet "M" for the misfortunates and moochers and micreants among us?

Comment from jtfoxx01

TueAMCSTE_Rthth

JT Foxx is here to give and serve you because together, we are the difference in each other's success. Check out JT Foxx if you are ready to join me in this fight to stay ahead of an ever-changing market economy.

Comment from PHBinDenial

ThuPMCSTE_Rthth

In general, I like the idea. People do tend to perform to how they are being measured. As I think about your idea, I find myself evaluating whether I am a wealth creator or a net consumer. That means we need to be careful to measure the right things to avoid unintended consequences. If the neighbors see my electric bill and it causes me to start turning the light off when I exit a room, I will lower my electric bill and look good to my neighbors. But if I am using those crappy CFL bulbs that take 15 minutes to get up to full efficiency and cycle them on and off frequently, I will shorten their life by 10x or even 30x, putting more waste in the landfill. I may lower my electric bill, but I will have become a bigger net energy user in goods consumed and become worse for the environment. We may be measuring the wrong thing. Giving someone in school the automatic wealth creator status would make school even more of a haven for the lazy bast**ds that linger there for years on government grants and loans. It would be even easier to say that old people who retire are a drain and need to be eliminated. They would all be net consumers of wealth. Sure, many elderly really are a financial drain on their families and society in general. But do we want their value to be measured strictly in financial terms?

Comment from lfstevens

ThuAMCSTE_Rthth

A personal, progressive consumption tax would approximate this model without requiring anything other than prices, income and purchases. Tax people on what they consume, with the rate increasing the more they consume.

Comment from jdg

ThuAMCSTE_Rthth

The only sensible way to judge a political/economic regime is by looking at the incentives it creates, and the resulting wealth status. And the countries with the freest economies (meaning both the strongest protection for property rights and the smallest governments) have always been the richest, so much so that even the top 1% in socialist countries envy our welfare recipients. Therefore, all advocates for socialism are either dupes, or barbarians who don't want to let anyone be wealthy. Read green-agenda.com for lots of leftist (and green) leaders admitting this.

Comment from whtllnew

WedPMCSTE_Rthth

@PhantomII [My point is that wealth creation must create wealth, directly, or it's not wealth creation. Duh. ] In that case what we're dealing with is a difference in how we define wealth creation. By your definition a whole slew of activities that are important to wealth creation-investment, building computer networks, roadbuilding-cannot be considered to create wealth. I think they should be considered to create wealth because the alternative is to consider the folks engaged in these activities to be consumers (i.e., moochers). Though I also agree with sizzlers observation that we need to be careful which of these activities we consider wealth creation.

Comment from sizzler

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

@Phantom II .. 100

Comment from sizzler

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

Hi Scott, You started off by identifying the right issue to focus on wealth creators vs wealth moochers?.... However here are the flaws in your solution "Now let's say society agrees to define a person who is in school, or in any sort of training course, as automatically part of the creator class. " ... How is this society labelling automatically make it correct ... what if going to school does not automatically make you a creator... you could still be a bum after going to a school you know... will you compel other wealth producers who even after dropping out of school found ways to earn to pay for this bums... do you see a flaw in your argument? "To make things easier, let's assume we label as a wealth creator anyone who invests in a start-up, even if the start-up does not succeed." Really if this carries on are you sure the wealth creator will be able to hold on to his wealth... Investors do take risks, calculated risks ... they would only succeed even with the occasional losses only when they are at liberty to choose whether and what to invest on.. you seem to be taking that vital choice away. "A more productive way to view the world is in terms of net creators and net consumers of wealth, at least so long as society makes it possible for any net consumer to become a net creator by going to school, training for a job, or investing in start-ups. " None of these things automatically make you a net creator, if I just attempt to go to a school that teaches drawing comics, will that make me automatically you (a successful comic strip writer)... will you part with your wealth to a person who assuredly is eating through it ... more correctly will you FORCE that on others?

Comment from language

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

[Did you ever think that entertainment creators (like cartoonists) are worse than wealth consumers? Yes they are, they encourage the rest of the population to be iddle (and watch their creation), instead of working hard. Therefore they contribute negatively to the wealth creation far more than any wealth consumer on government benefits or rich fat cat that sits by his hotel pool in the bahamas.] rejuventating recreation is a moral good. it enhances uptime productivity and makes ppl happier.

Comment from Phantom II

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

@wittllnew, I'm not sure what your objection is. If you could make it clearer, I could address it. My point was that Scott's post tried to redefine what constituted someone who creates wealth from someone who takes wealth. He then said that someone who goes to a school that is paid for by someone other than themselves as someone who creates wealth. So tell me how someone whose education is being paid for by someone else is creating wealth? If you can do that, then I'll say I was wrong. My point was that telling someone that black is white doesn't make black white. If someone in government says that taking someone else's money to give you something that you haven't earned is actually wealth creation rather than wealth consumption, then you have redeflined the terms to say that whatever you say is wealth creation is wealth creation. My point is that wealth creation must create wealth, directly, or it's not wealth creation. Duh. Saying that something may create wealth someday, even though it is consuming wealth right now is wealth creation, makes it pointless to define wealth creation in any meaningful terms. If anything can be defined as wealth creation when it is obviously wealth consumption, then you're saying that all that matters is your definition rather than the reality of what's going on. My point was that this kind of doublespeak a la "1984." Telling people that taking other people's money by telling yourself that you really deserve it because it's somehow creating wealth is not only a lie but beyond specious. If you think that the takers don't justify themselves by pointing to government's telling them this is their due, then you need to wake up. And Scott's redefining of the terms doesn't change the truth. Stealing from others isn't OK just because you redefine what stealing is.

Comment from whtllnew

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

@PhantomII ...Umm...I think you went off on a tangent shortly after the bit about the student. I mean, I can see that from one POV studying is not wealth creation (from another POV its just another form of investing, which can be considered wealth creation). But how you got from that to saying that Scotts post justifies an entitlement mentality is beyond me. Reading Scotts post he strikes me as discouraging such thinking.

Comment from mabehr

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

When did "thieves" and "wealth redistributors" become the only two options? And why frame "poor" as net consumers of wealth? Some "poor" people would likely argue that they are less wealthy because they are under compensated for the value that they bring...and that (at least some) wealthy people are overcompensated.

Comment from Phantom II

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

Gee, Scott, I have an idea: let's call a cat a dog! That will make it much easier to not get confused over which is which! The problem with your theory, as with most of the things you propose here, is that it requires the re-defining of terms. Let me give you an example: you say that, in your definition, all we have to do is say that someone who is using other people's money to get ahead - say, someone in school or a training class, is REALLY not taking other people's money, but in your world view, creating wealth. The problem with that is simple: it is not true. The person who studies may be working on the road to creating wealth someday, but as he or she uses other people's money to get that education, he or she is absolutely, by definition, a wealth consumer. To pretend otherwise is not only foolish, it is incorrect. It is what has led to the entitlement society. People who believe that if they just want wealth badly enough, it should be given to them. In the old days, circa 1950, we had a thing called charity. It was based upon the religious teachings of Jesus Christ, who admonished us all to do our part to help the poor. This led to the rise of the Hospitaliers; people who established places for the sick to be housed, and a way for Christians to provide for those less fortunate or in need because it's the right thing to do. The difference between then and now is that charity has somehow become a right, and because it's a right, anyone who wants it has somehow become entitled to it. In the past, when people received charity, they realized that they didn't deserve it just because they existed; they realized that they were being given it because someone who didn't have to do it decided, for whatever reason, to give them something they hadn't earned. People who received charity were grateful, but they never thought it was something that they had coming to them. It gave them an incentive to get off of charity, and when they were able, to return the charity that had been given to them. Flash forward to today. Today, the government has done what you have done, Scott. They've redefined what charity is. It is no longer something given freely; it is now something mandated by the government for reasons that are anything but charitable. It is theft to buy votes, plain and simple, and it has resulted in the destruction of our economy and our children's future. It would possibly be understandable if they were just using money they had, but they're not. Forty cents of every dollar they spend is borrowed, largely from the Chinese. Is there anyone who thinks that's a good thing, or that it's sustainable? If so, you need to take another basic math course, and get real. So redefine any terms you want, Scott. Pretend you can build a strong house on a foundation of quicksand. But what you really are is part of the problem. If you can come up with a real solution that empowers the individual and stops the theft of other people's property, I would sure love to hear it.

Comment from whtllnew

WedAMCSTE_Rthth

@Stui [Fair enough about hard to tell what people do, but how bout my other example? Nurses and Police? Both funded from the public purse so they're net users of wealth. can you (or anyone else) see and explain how they could be considered wealth creators?] There are times, like now, when we must consider the wealth something creates indirectly. To understand this consider the internet. If you were to get rid of all the programming and data on our computers, devices and servers then network part of the internet (the fact that they can talk to each other at the rate of several megabytes a second) becomes worthless. Google, wikipedia, e-mail, etc. all directly create wealth but to see what wealth the networks that make them possible creates one should not consider the networks themselves but, rather, what is done with them. Similar logic applies to police. They do not directly create wealth directly but in a properly functioning society they enforce rules that are necessary for others to create wealth, so they can be considered infrastructure. And the wealth they generate can be indirectly considered on that basis. As for nurses, to the extent that people would pay out of their own pockets for their care if they had to they can be considered to create wealth too.

Comment from Stui

TuePMCSTE_Rthth

@whtllnew, Fair enough about hard to tell what people do, but how bout my other example? Nurses and Police? Both funded from the public purse so they're net users of wealth. can you (or anyone else) see and explain how they could be considered wealth creators?

Comment from usmdj

TuePMCSTE_Rthth

" It encourages a win-lose approach to government policy in order to pursue the elusive unicorn of "fairness." " Scott, Your assumption is that the government is in the business of fairness. They are actually in the business of getting votes. Bread and circuses.