[JasonC]

If that is, anyone cares (lol)...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If you don't spend every penny you can get your hands on, you are a greedy rich person.

And a racist, too.

[Uncle Miltie]

Wow. We agree on two somethings.

[Sherman Logan]

It flows to its recipients because they entirely deserve it for the valuable service they have provided.

Several problems with your proposition:

1. Not all capital was originally acquired by providing valuable services. The families of the still wealthy aristocrats of Europe and Latin America originally acquired their capital generally by being more successful thugs than others. I'm not sure those are valuable services to society.

Simiarly, drug lords in Mexico, oligarchs in Russia (who essentially stole the country from positions of influence in the government) and organized crime guys in the US acquire capital and often pass it on to their descendants. Their services to society are mostly if not entirely negative.

Historically speaking, crony capitalism has been much more common than free market capitalism. Those who acquire capital this way aren't providing valuable services, at least that's not the main reason for their acquisition of capital.

Indeed, historically speaking the main way to acquire a lot of capital is to invade somebody and take their stuff.

2. Second, third and twelfth generation descendants of those who originally acquired the capital by providing valuable services enjoy the benefits of that capital without in most cases providing equivalent ongoing value to society. IOW, in my opinion those who earn money in legal ways have a moral right to its enjoyment while those who inherit that money from them have only a legal right, not a moral one. Or rather their right to it is not a moral one in the same way.

Thanks for posting an interesting proposition. As you can see, I don't think it holds true in all cases, but it obviously does in many.

[Sherman Logan]

BTW, agree completely with your #2.

[marshmallow]

Proposition - the income from capital is entirely legitimate. It flows to its recipients because they entirely deserve it for the valuable service they have provided. Any attempt to outlaw it, redistribute it, destroy it, or legislate it out of existence or all recognition, is unjust on its face. It is economically beneficial, not destructive. Protecting and encouraging income from capital leads to additional capital formation and thereby enriches everyone, without exception.

I was looking for the word "risk" but I didn't see it.

I guess you forgot the second part of the proposition.

You know..........the part that says income from capital is not guaranteed?

Right?

That's the bit that says when capital is provided unwisely to bad risks and the deal goes sour, you get no income and instead get to eat your losses.

Risk.........reward........two different sides of the same coin.

Right?

If we're going to preach about the horrors of redistributing income from capital then we ought to include doing the same with losses incurred by the same process, I believe. You wouldn't want to give the impression that this is some sort of hymn to the infallibility and impeccability to those who provide capital, would you?

[Oceander]

What about income derived from labor? Is that any the less “legitimate?”