The anti-capitalists have this crazy idea that investment income isn’t “earned” in the same way that labor income is. Of course that’s absurdly anti-capitalist and completely ignores the point of capitalism and the function of risk taking incentivized by potential rewards. Failing to make a coherent argument against active investment income, for instance entrepreneurs, they will then revert to criticism of passive investors and their eventual complaint will come to arguing S&P index investors should be taxed on “unrealized” gains.
Remember it’s all illogical nonsense motivated by Envy which they masquerade as Empathy.
" Earned income is money received as payment for work, including wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, tips, and net earnings from self-employment. For tax purposes, it can also include long-term disability payments, union strike benefits, and, in some cases, payments from certain deferred retirement compensation arrangements.
Income such as investment profits and Social Security payments is considered unearned income, also known as passive income."
That’s all accurate and I was assuming you were referring to passive income exactly as you have clarified.
That doesn’t change any of my observations as your comments imply unearned income deserves higher taxation than current is applied, which is what I object to.
It's motivated by the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards. Having some people in society that can sit at home and watch the S&P increase while some have to work 50-hour weeks to make ends meet is seen as problematic.
The anti-capitalists have this crazy idea that investment income isn’t “earned” in the same way that labor income is. Of course that’s absurdly anti-capitalist and completely ignores the point of capitalism and the function of risk taking incentivized by potential rewards. Failing to make a coherent argument against active investment income, for instance entrepreneurs, they will then revert to criticism of passive investors and their eventual complaint will come to arguing S&P index investors should be taxed on “unrealized” gains.
Remember it’s all illogical nonsense motivated by Envy which they masquerade as Empathy.
I thought "earned income" was an actual accounting term (to define a type of taxable income as opposed to passive income):
https://itap1.for.irs.gov/owda/0/resource/Commentary_Files_R...
" Earned income is money received as payment for work, including wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, tips, and net earnings from self-employment. For tax purposes, it can also include long-term disability payments, union strike benefits, and, in some cases, payments from certain deferred retirement compensation arrangements.
Income such as investment profits and Social Security payments is considered unearned income, also known as passive income."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnedincome.asp
That’s all accurate and I was assuming you were referring to passive income exactly as you have clarified.
That doesn’t change any of my observations as your comments imply unearned income deserves higher taxation than current is applied, which is what I object to.
It's motivated by the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards. Having some people in society that can sit at home and watch the S&P increase while some have to work 50-hour weeks to make ends meet is seen as problematic.
And your influence, merit and worth are what you're paid in salary. That sounds sane.
It wasn't a judgement remark, "earned income" is what you call that which is not passive income
1 reply →
I see this as a goal in life, not a problem
> the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards.
and of those hard earned rewards investing them and then sitting at home and watching the S&P increase you mean?
oh wait that’s problematic … let’s take those rewards away for “fairness” .. opps no incentives no meritocracy no prosperity