Bernie Sanders

[IQS.RLOW]

I don’t subscribe to the “politics of envy” but in my book, when the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 90%, I think we have a moral problem. I believe in an honest days work, for an honest days pay.

I am not particularly morally comfortable with passive income. I know this screams “socialist”, which I assure you I am not, but I believe if you want to put bread on the table, you should work for it. This applies equally to dole bludgers.

Leaving aside that morals are subjective and the 1%/90% is a marxist construction built on the false premise of equality of outcome and fueled by envy and that the "inequality" of the 1%, means the 90% are more wealthy than they would have been... a passive income is simply reinvested capital= someone's accumulated labour = someone's honest days pay.

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

[Nicole]

@ IQ

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

You've lost me here. Can you flesh out what you mean?

Thanks

Nicole

[IQS.RLOW]

@ IQ

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

You've lost me here. Can you flesh out what you mean?

Thanks

Nicole

You apparently have a moral issue with the 1%/90% trope and returns on capital investment or "passive" income as you termed.
The accumulation of the trade in one's own labour and investing that trade's outcome for a return is something you appear to have a moral issue with. Ergo, you appear to have an issue with what a person does with their 'fair days pay' (ie labour) such as investing and/or whether that person's labour is morally deserving of the term "fair days pay"?

Have I got the right or wrong end of the stick?

[Nicole]

@ IQ

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

You've lost me here. Can you flesh out what you mean?

Thanks

Nicole

You apparently have a moral issue with the 1%/90% trope and returns on capital investment or "passive" income as you termed.
The accumulation of the trade in one's own labour and investing that trade's outcome for a return is something you appear to have a moral issue with. Ergo, you appear to have an issue with what a person does with their 'fair days pay' (ie labour) such as investing and/or whether that person's labour is morally deserving of the term "fair days pay"?

Have I got the right or wrong end of the stick?

I think you’ve got the right end of the stick IQ.

[IQS.RLOW]

So, the question remains...

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

[Nicole]

So, the question remains...

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

Yes I would, however a passive income is not “labour”.

[IQS.RLOW]

So, the question remains...

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

Yes I would, however a passive income is not “labour”.

A passive income is the result of the decision of how one's labour is spent.
If you believe that you should determine that avenue should be closed because 'morals', then you should have no trouble accepting a 'moral' limitation imposed on how you will be allowed to spend the fruits of your labour?

[Nicole]

So, the question remains...

Given you seem prepared to arbitrate the use and worth another person's labour, I gather you would have no qualms about someone narrowing the use and worth of your own?

Yes I would, however a passive income is not “labour”.

A passive income is the result of the decision of how one's labour is spent.
If you believe that you should determine that avenue should be closed because 'morals', then you should have no trouble accepting a 'moral' limitation imposed on how you will be allowed to spend the fruits of your labour?

You are correct *nicole lays down her sword with good grace*.

I guess what I am saying - poorly, it seems - is my own personal values and ethics would not allow me to rely on a passive income. But then my own personal values and ethics would not allow me to have an abortion either, despite the fact I am pro choice.

Well debated, IQ.

[brian ross]

[Black Orchid]

Propaganda Brian.

For a start some states in the US do have paid parental leave and in the states where the government doesn't guarantee it most employers provide it even though they are not necessarily obliged to.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 76 percent of private industry workers (who make up 84.7 percent of all workers) receive paid vacation days. ... What's more, according to a study from the U.S. Travel Association's Project Time Off, 52 percent of Americans didn't even use all of their vacation days in 2017

Can't be bothered with the rest.