You know that most retirees rely on passive income, right? That investment is for the working class as well as the bourgeois and wealthy? Fucks sake, I wait tables and I invest, both in stocks and real estate.
Maybe this is different where you live, but where I live, most retirees have retirement investments, not pensions, and even pensions are usually drawn from a fund that is invested in the market. You can argue this shouldn’t be the case, but you cannot seriously argue that this is not the case.
I’m not watching a video. Anything worth saying is better said in plain text.
Again, I wait tables and will not receive a pension; I barely receive a wage. Any late-life income is going to be either support from my children or from investments I make now.
At this point, I almost have to think you’re trolling. Until you prove it, though, I’ll attempt to keep discussing in good faith.
And so, your link: “Usury” is the English word for that concept. And investments generally aren’t interest-bearing loans, anyway, but profit-sharing ventures.
Further: If I take my wages, my active income, and I invest it, the income from those investments is passive income, even if the initial investment was made with active income.
Finally: Videos are an ablist format that are hostile to those with vision and hearing impairments, both of which I have. I don’t think saying “use your words” is refusing new information, but rather demanding it.
there is Investment into “schaffendes Kapital” —> productive Capital … it Produces … it Consumes … most of what it produces increases general wellbeeing (there is Consumer deemand because it does) …it is goodish side of Kapital
there is Investment into “Raffendes Kapital” —> “Extracting Capital” … Rent & Interest… it does not Produce … no , it is evens dependent on Decreasing Production… decreasing general wellbeeing… decreased Housing --> increased Rent
interest produces nothing as well , it extracts Money (by a mathematical calculation , that does not really exist) and then produces Guilt by Misfortune…
–> it decreases general wellbeeing
think about your Rent . what Percentage of your Wage do you Pay just for Rent ? You Pay because a Human necessity (housing) is made “scarce” …
WTAF are you talking about. On Lemmy, you’re either a communist or a billlionaire tooting nazi.
I’m in favour of a progressive tax on income, in favour of inheritance tax and in favour of a wealth tax. That doesn’t mean I think some people shouldn’t become rich from their efforts or that every wealthy person has gotten their by exploring the labour they employ (everybody else free to take that risk too).
I’d like my government and country run like the Nordics. Where I do fit in in your insane binary world?
Me too. If you think the Nordics is bad, don’t move move to the U.K. or US where I am. We can argue all day long about our experience of each system, but look at the Gini coefficient alone for some data.
Yeah, I am proud of my country’s history of somewhat national control over resources and not super incredibly terrible distribution of wealth. The bar set by the UK and US is outstandingly low though, and the trend for the Nordics is going in the wrong direction, and has been for 50 years, even though there were lots of potential for improvement even 50 years ago.
The communist viewpoint is that bourgeoisie interests will inevitably erode social democracies and make them rot from within. You have to replace the capitalist mode of production to have a chance at combatting exploitation of nature and people in any real and lasting capacity.
“i am not against billionaires , i am against billionaires”
You know that most retirees rely on passive income, right? That investment is for the working class as well as the bourgeois and wealthy? Fucks sake, I wait tables and I invest, both in stocks and real estate.
i do not know that because it is wrong. Retirees deepend on their Pension. the Pension is from their earlier income .
Passive Income is Landlords and Interest … if you Try to Put Students and Retierees in there you are a Classtraitor or 10.000 miles under the Water …
Maybe this is different where you live, but where I live, most retirees have retirement investments, not pensions, and even pensions are usually drawn from a fund that is invested in the market. You can argue this shouldn’t be the case, but you cannot seriously argue that this is not the case.
and the Fund is filled by what money ?
the Company profit or part of your Wage ?
watch this video you will understand afterwards…
I’m not watching a video. Anything worth saying is better said in plain text.
Again, I wait tables and will not receive a pension; I barely receive a wage. Any late-life income is going to be either support from my children or from investments I make now.
so you refuse to aquire new information ? lol …
the Money you invest is the Money YOU laboured for (your active Income)
the Money you Boss invests is also the Money YOU laboured for (his Passiv Income).
its pretty wierd to imagine a definition .
–> then demand that your definition is the prober one ,
–> then refuse actually knowledge about the topic…
Your Employer (lives passivly by your labour) refuses to share enough of the “Surplus value” of your Labour with you for a Pension.
He is your enemy. he wants you to labour as Hard as you can and he wants to pay you as little as he needs to
he is Passiv Income… his income is what is redacted from your Wage.
but i can do plain text as well : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinsverbot (rightclick and translate , there is no english version you can wonder why )
At this point, I almost have to think you’re trolling. Until you prove it, though, I’ll attempt to keep discussing in good faith.
And so, your link: “Usury” is the English word for that concept. And investments generally aren’t interest-bearing loans, anyway, but profit-sharing ventures.
Further: If I take my wages, my active income, and I invest it, the income from those investments is passive income, even if the initial investment was made with active income.
Finally: Videos are an ablist format that are hostile to those with vision and hearing impairments, both of which I have. I don’t think saying “use your words” is refusing new information, but rather demanding it.
there is Investment into “schaffendes Kapital” —> productive Capital … it Produces … it Consumes … most of what it produces increases general wellbeeing (there is Consumer deemand because it does) …it is goodish side of Kapital
there is Investment into “Raffendes Kapital” —> “Extracting Capital” … Rent & Interest… it does not Produce … no , it is evens dependent on Decreasing Production… decreasing general wellbeeing… decreased Housing --> increased Rent
interest produces nothing as well , it extracts Money (by a mathematical calculation , that does not really exist) and then produces Guilt by Misfortune…
–> it decreases general wellbeeing
think about your Rent . what Percentage of your Wage do you Pay just for Rent ? You Pay because a Human necessity (housing) is made “scarce” …
Productive Capital verus Extractive Capital
WTAF are you talking about. On Lemmy, you’re either a communist or a billlionaire tooting nazi.
I’m in favour of a progressive tax on income, in favour of inheritance tax and in favour of a wealth tax. That doesn’t mean I think some people shouldn’t become rich from their efforts or that every wealthy person has gotten their by exploring the labour they employ (everybody else free to take that risk too).
I’d like my government and country run like the Nordics. Where I do fit in in your insane binary world?
I am from the Nordics. Spoiler: the rich get rich from exploiting workers and national resources, or inheritance from someone else that did.
Look at university professors’ pay compared to that of a broker if you think we have a merit awarding income system.
Me too. If you think the Nordics is bad, don’t move move to the U.K. or US where I am. We can argue all day long about our experience of each system, but look at the Gini coefficient alone for some data.
Yeah, I am proud of my country’s history of somewhat national control over resources and not super incredibly terrible distribution of wealth. The bar set by the UK and US is outstandingly low though, and the trend for the Nordics is going in the wrong direction, and has been for 50 years, even though there were lots of potential for improvement even 50 years ago.
The communist viewpoint is that bourgeoisie interests will inevitably erode social democracies and make them rot from within. You have to replace the capitalist mode of production to have a chance at combatting exploitation of nature and people in any real and lasting capacity.