A tale of the two parasites

[paxmao]

In politics and economics, I can live with many things, but there is two types of people that I just cannot stand:

The poor parasite

The poor parasite intends to live without adding any value to the economy and society in which he (or she) lives. He will look and learn about all the possible ways to trick others into paying his bills, caring for his children and providing. If that does not happen, he will create social unrest, commit crimes or be a problem for the rest.

Due to this people, many think that poorer people should be left to their own means and that any opportunity you give them is money wasted.


The rich parasite

The rich parasite intends to live without adding any value to the economy and society in which he (or she lives). He will look and learn about all the possible ways to avoid contributing to the country or state he lives in, while demanding full legal protection of his assets and lifestyle. If that does not happen, they will create social unrest, take funds to tax havens a pay politicians to make his will.

Due to this people, many think that rich people should be taxed to death and that the political systems is essentially corrupt.

Both are parasites, both damage the economy.

[1715072055]

1715072055

[1715072055]

1715072055

[1715072055]

1715072055

[Gozie51]

About the rich, they do add value sort off during their investment in the country that adds to the GDP and increase per income to their employees. The employees are made responsible to their families as they paid and they take care of their children, send them to school, feed and provide shelter.

The rich also add value because of different types of taxes levied against them and their businesses. The monies being generated from that are used to provide social amenities to the people.

Likewise not all the poor are parasites. Some poor have good knowledge to be better but may lack capital to do something with their knowledge. The poor are employed in government and they develop good policy to the government, they are very dedicated to work for progress to the area of life they find themselves.

[paxmao]

About the rich, they do add value sort off during their investment in the country that adds to the GDP and increase per income to their employees. The employees are made responsible to their families as they paid and they take care of their children, send them to school, feed and provide shelter.

The rich also add value because of different types of taxes levied against them and their businesses. The monies being generated from that are used to provide social amenities to the people.

Likewise not all the poor are parasites. Some poor have good knowledge to be better but may lack capital to do something with their knowledge. The poor are employed in government and they develop good policy to the government, they are very dedicated to work for progress to the area of life they find themselves.

No, the "rich" parasite does not add any value by paying others. He is not creating anything for anyone. You do not understand the difference between money and value.

Please, read a bit more carefully and see if I say that all poor are parasites in any part of my post.

[Hydrogen]

"Conditions of degeneration in the organic world are approximately known. These conditions are often of two distinct kinds, deprivation of food, light, etc. so leading to imperfect nutrition and enervation; the other, a life of repose, with abundant supply of food and decreased exposure to the dangers of the environment. It is noteworthy that while the former only depresses, or at most distinguishes the specific type, the latter, through the disuse of the nervous and other structures etc. which such a simplification of life involves, brings about that far more insidious and through degeneration seen in the life history of myriads of parasites."

-Patrick Geddes




Always loved this quotation as an outline for defining societal trends.

There are many examples in biology and nature to support this. Domesticated pigs develop differently from wild feral pigs. The degree to which the environment, threats and perceived dangers can affect human development could easily be under recognized. As could negative developmental trends associated with a perceived lack of danger / threat.

To some degree this could be defined by storytelling within a "whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" paradigm. Bruce Wayne being exposed to trauma at a young age may be partially credited with him developing into Batman. The world is always changing and people are changing with it in an effort to adapt to shifting circumstances.

If there's anything that defines a parasitic existence, it could be remaining static and unchanging under a guise of there being no threat or danger to necessitate change.

[mdgabrielzim]

Really, the rich parasite only creates for himself, he will never do anything to anyone that does not bring him any advantage. I feel very sorry for these people and the way of life they live, it must be surrounded by illusions and lies, because in the end we all go to the same place.

[maju69]

Agree or not, that's actually what we see today. It's said to be a parasite or something, maybe the two will not be the same as mixed in one container. If we do not carefully read the text it will be a little wrong. It needs to be repeated to find something that can really be concluded. I don't dare to say both are damaging to the economy. Because it's all in the economic policy of a country. Will it support the rich or will it push the poor to continue paying taxes.

[Poker Player]

For me this is not a black and white issue.

I think that the rich and poor people that we could call parasites are a minority. In the case of rich people, I would say that there are more parasites among those who have inherited wealth, rather than among those who create it. It is not uncommon to see families where the grandfather was rich, the father maintained a certain standard of living but ate up the wealth, and the grandson ended up squandering what was left.

In the case of poor people, I would say that the number of what we could call parasites, and I don't really like the word, also depends on the incentive system they have. If you live in a country where the ruling politicians consider the poor as victims of society who cannot fend for themselves and that the state has to save (getting their vote in return), there are going to be more parasites than in another country where there is less aid and it is considered that if you do badly economically in life it is at least largely your fault.

[bittraffic]

They are both parasites though, the rich are the worse because they know they can contribute enough to help, they instead make it worse by creating social unrest. We've seen a lot of these people in my country who do have a position in the government but also own big businesses like TV and radio station spreading lies. And the poor who believes in them become the poor parasites.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Both are parasites, both damage the economy.

That may be true (and I believe it is, though I don't think I'd use the term "parasite" to describe wealthy individuals), but your examples represent two extremes which probably make up just a small percentage of all the citizens of, let's say, the United States.  I don't know what the situation is in other countries; the percentage of both classes of parasites could be higher or lower depending on the state of the economy.  The majority of people are middle-class folks working jobs, with families, and they neither rely on the government to take care of them, nor go to great lengths to hide their wealth from the tax man.

If I had to pick my least favorite category, it would be the rich "parasites" but only because there's a tinge of envy in me that I'm loathe to admit.  The reason I don't think they're true parasites to society is that they do pay a lot of taxes, even if they find loopholes in tax law or even hide money in off-shore accounts or whatever.  Also, the uber-wealthy contribute to the economy through their spending, which directly and indirectly helps everyone else

Oh, by the way, the political system is absolutely corrupt to the core.  It always has been, probably always will be. 

[Darker45]

I agree. There are indeed such kinds of people in society. But I think they are not totally parasites in the sense that they are still paying taxes in their own limited ways. I mean, who could avoid paying taxes when every time you buy something you are already paying taxes? As a matter of fact, the act of buying itself adds to the economy already.

Well, in the case of the poor parasite, if he/she is eating food, wearing clothes, living in a shelter, and so on all for free, perhaps he/she is a complete parasite. But if she/he's got cash sometimes and uses it to buy stuff, he/she is not an absolute parasite.

[johnyj]

About the rich, they do add value sort off during their investment in the country that adds to the GDP and increase per income to their employees. The employees are made responsible to their families as they paid and they take care of their children, send them to school, feed and provide shelter.

The rich also add value because of different types of taxes levied against them and their businesses. The monies being generated from that are used to provide social amenities to the people.

Likewise not all the poor are parasites. Some poor have good knowledge to be better but may lack capital to do something with their knowledge. The poor are employed in government and they develop good policy to the government, they are very dedicated to work for progress to the area of life they find themselves.

No, the "rich" parasite does not add any value by paying others. He is not creating anything for anyone. You do not understand the difference between money and value.

Please, read a bit more carefully and see if I say that all poor are parasites in any part of my post.

This is interest and worth debating. Value depends on supply and demand, as long as people want money, it has value. So by giving other people money in exchange for their product, you are doing fair trading and satisfy other's need of money, how is that not creating anything for anyone?

The real question might be: Why people need money? Does money has value? And where is that value coming from?

By the way, if you want to eliminate rich parasites, then you should first disable private ownership of properties/land, since every land owner is able to do rent seeking and live forever on passive rent income. But if you remove the private ownership of properties, then you have communism society, no rich parasite for sure but lots of politic parasites

And another question, does it really matter economy being strong or weak, as long as most basic needs can be satisfied and national defense is strong enough, like Russia?

[Wexnident]

Wouldn't it be much more sensible to blame the current system? Though tbf it is still people who adopt the system to be used so I guess what you stay could still make sense. Still, I'd reckon that it's the way of living that has made people coexist like parasites. In that sense, the concept of the world being a dog-eat-dog one would make complete sense. The poor parasites' situation would make complete sense since they're trying to live, but the rich ones may seem like they are protecting their wealth but in the end, isn't that also one way of trying to live? Though I guess that is a subjective question so I doubt wit could be explained in that way.

[Gyfts]

About the rich, they do add value sort off during their investment in the country that adds to the GDP and increase per income to their employees. The employees are made responsible to their families as they paid and they take care of their children, send them to school, feed and provide shelter.

The rich also add value because of different types of taxes levied against them and their businesses. The monies being generated from that are used to provide social amenities to the people.

Likewise not all the poor are parasites. Some poor have good knowledge to be better but may lack capital to do something with their knowledge. The poor are employed in government and they develop good policy to the government, they are very dedicated to work for progress to the area of life they find themselves.

No, the "rich" parasite does not add any value by paying others. He is not creating anything for anyone. You do not understand the difference between money and value.

Please, read a bit more carefully and see if I say that all poor are parasites in any part of my post.

The rich is paying some one else, that is creating a job. How can you say that isn't creating something?

Unless you are advocating for a social welfare state, how else do you expect creation of economic activity? Private market has all the capital, and so the rich are only as parasitic to the extent the average working person allows them to be beholden to their grip. In any socialist society, where there is no "rich," there is no economic activity, and the end of the tale usually entails a lot of suffering. Private market full of rich people includes a market of workers that are free to take their labor where they want.

Though, the far reaching plutocratic societies truly have parasitic rich people. And by plutocratic, I do not mean extreme capitalism, there is a nuanced difference.

[so98nn]

Really, the rich parasite only creates for himself, he will never do anything to anyone that does not bring him any advantage. I feel very sorry for these people and the way of life they live, it must be surrounded by illusions and lies, because in the end we all go to the same place.

Thats too harsh. We dont have any conclusive proof for everyone. There are bold rich peeps who keep giving to society's welfare and yet we are arguing on the rich peeps and their poor giveaways.

Only few of them like Ratan Tata, Ambani, Steve, Elon, Bill & Gates, Adar Poonawalla (Serum India) are constantly giving out money, food, medicinal supplies, shelter and every daily needs. They alone constitute to more than trillions of dollars giving away every year to the needy.

In the recent estimates Tata group alone give away their 66% wealth to the needy through various trusts.

I don't understand why are making the comparison of them with the parasites?

They earn it, they dont steal it. On top of that they are giving away huge part of them.

There are many wealthy peeps who are greedy and dont give away, it does not mean all the riches should be stamped as parasite. That's very poor economical ethics you are imploding on.

I mean tomorrow I might be running a business and funding some charities, so it would be hurtful to see myself getting called rich parasite. That suck.

[Kakmakr]

I am very fortunate to have lived in a first world country and to have had the opportunity to work in 3rd world countries. So, I have experience of both of these so-called, "Parasites"

Now, do not assume that all people in 1st world countries are "rich parasites" and all people from 3rd world countries are "Poor parasites" ...because that will simply be wrong.

There are a lot of rich people that are investing in 3rd world countries to help the poor... but some of the rich parasites do this to "rape" their resources to profit. Also, some people in 3rd world countries want to work.. but the corrupt politicians steal all the money, that was supposed to go towards projects that would have created new job opportunities. 

[crwth]

According to Merriam-Webster, the parasite is

1: an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it
Many diseases are caused by parasites.

2: disapproving: a person or thing that takes something from someone or something else and does not do anything to earn it or deserve it

The second one is probably the applicable one here. It's like they are bringing down the whole economy and think that they deserve it. I agree with your view that it's the people and I wouldn't want to be with them as well. I don't think I can understand why they choose to live like that and only think of themselves. You could also characterize it as selfish and will only do something if it benefits; hence "parasite" is the proper term.

There are many other possible descriptions for different types of people, but I guess that can be a topic for the OP for another time.

[Ucy]

Interestingly, lots of the things I depend on today are from the poor. I think I could survive with them alone if I have no other means to survive, but I doubt the rich can sustain me if I live with them only. To be honest, I can't live in a society without the poor but I can live in a society without the rich. Doesn't mean I don't like the rich but I doubt they can sustain themselves alone without the poor. .

The problem is simply those who are not fruitful whether poor or rich.

[Cnut237]

Both are parasites, both damage the economy.

That may be true (and I believe it is, though I don't think I'd use the term "parasite" to describe wealthy individuals), but your examples represent two extremes which probably make up just a small percentage of all the citizens of, let's say, the United States.

True, but it's not so much the percentage of people that is important, as the percentage of wealth. I'm also not sure of the wording, but one rich "parasite" has a vastly greater effect than one poor "parasite". And yet it is the poor who are routinely demonised. Someone cheating their way out of a $100 gas bill is less of an issue for society than someone using accounting loopholes to evade a $1,000,000 tax bill.

In the case of rich people, I would say that there are more parasites among those who have inherited wealth, rather than among those who create it.

Certainly. The fact that the very richest obtain most of their wealth not through income but through returns on existing capital is one of the main arguments in favour of a wealth tax (however impractical that may be to implement).

[paxmao]

Both are parasites, both damage the economy.

That may be true (and I believe it is, though I don't think I'd use the term "parasite" to describe wealthy individuals), but your examples represent two extremes ...

The term parasite describe some rich and some poor. Not all of them certainly, as said before in response to another poster.

It is curios how most people do not consider the rich a parasite, because he pays for his (her bills). However, this is not about how much you own, but about how much are you delivering to the society and to others. If the answer is "just taking", the wealth you own is irrelevant.

[davis196]

Both the rich and poor parasites are parasites because somebody allows them to be parasites.
By "somebody" I mean the government and the society.
The government and the society tolerates tax evasion conducted by the rich people and the poor people being spoonfed by the state.If the government and/or society forces the rich and poor people and stop being parasites,then most of them will stop being parasites and start contributing to the society.
Maybe some rich people will just leave the country and go live somewhere else,we can't do anything about it.
Some of the poor people will keep doing crimes,but they will have to face the consequences(going to jail).