Talk:Unearned income

Rent and Rend

The word "rent" (noun) is a from the Middle English "rente" and earlier Old French and Vulgar Latin "rendita", the past participle of rendere (i.e., render) "to furnish; provide a payment". Another, and different, meaning is "rent" (verb), is also from the Middle English "rend" and prior to that the Old English "rendan" and the Old Frisian "renda".

Whilst it's a cute coincidence, "rent" as in the noun doesn't seem to have anything to with "rent" as the verb. The English words come from different sources (Romance and Germanic) and just so happen to have the same sound.

I leave this here for other to comment on, and if there's no confirmation of an association between the two I'll removing the offending part.

Lev Lafayette (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed, and reverted the offending sentence in this revision. The etymology of rent as cognate with render is quite clearly stated in Webster 1913, which was one of the offending sentence's citations. The Online Etymology Dictionary agrees. I think the author of the offending sentence was just naming random sources for their pre-decided claim, without actually reading what those sources said. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

J. S. Mill

I removed the following:

The term "unearned increment" was coined by John Stuart Mill to refer to profiting to the rise in value of land from general progress. Source: http://www.progress.org/barnes19.htm Earned vs. Unearned Income, by Peter Barnes

The source asserts that Mill did use this term without telling where in the 33 volumes. At least not in Mills “Principles” where Mill uses “unearned advantage” (chap. II, § 1).Cuauti (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Does this refer to individual or corporate unearned income? Looks like it is individual. Should that be mentioned?

71.145.142.35 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Piyush

Income is normally associated with natural persons or households where as corporations have profit and loss or just operating expenses/revenue if non-profit. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It can refer to individual or corporate income. Its use & application has never been limited to individuals Vilhelmo (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Appears to be somewhat biased.

Britain is a socialist nation? That is the implication. All taxes could be called the redistributing of wealth. Is money given to corporations part of a socialist plan? It is reducing the definition to being meaningless.

~ NantucketNoon (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as lacking NPOV

Reason is simple: no man which makes a 'non-wage income' is going to use the term "unearned income", because the term itself implies that he is not entitled to that income in the first place. For that reason, "unearned income" can be seen obly as a mindless bromide used by socialists and religionists alike. 78.69.122.16 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious: is there a more neutral term for this "non-wage income" then? Something equivalent to Finnish "pääomatulo"? "Capital gain" seems the closest I've come across. --Jonik (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from a Google Search), "Unearned Income" is a standard accounting term, not just a term used by socialists and religionists. I don't think this article lacks NPOV due to the title.

Davidwebster48 (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Are people not entitled to the opinion that not all income is necessarily justified? Just because someone thinks their income is justified (or "earned") doesn't mean that it is. I don't even know how you could seriously believe that it's earned because someone thinks it's earned would be a valid argument. I could easily respond by saying that it's unearned because people think it's not earned. That would be an equally stupid and meaningless argument, simply begging the question. The terms are inherently subjective. Removing this on those grounds would mean that wikipedia was taking a stance on the matter for ideological reasons. No matter what you may believe, libertarianism is not objective truth. It is an ideology just like every other ideology man has ever produced.

2. You believe that it's an mindless bromide? So what? You aren't God. You believe one thing, others believe another. Why should wikipedia be edited according to your personal beliefs? Even if it were an objective falsity, a "mindless bromide", why would that be any reason to delete it? I believe that Nazism is wrong, a mindless bromide for idiots. That doesn't mean I want to delete the article. It is a historically important concept, and you should simply mention the ways in which it was wrong rather than, as you seem to want, chunking it down into the memory hole and hiding it from the mindless rabble who, unlike you, do not have their minds shielded from such poison through the power of mindless devotion to pure ideology and may be influenced by it. Simply mention why it's wrong. The purpose of history is to prevent new generations from reinventing the same old errors, is it not? How are we supposed to learn otherwise?71.12.226.62 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@ user 78.69.122.16 Are you saying that Adam Smith is a socialist, that's just crazy. Unearned income was essential to classical economic theory of men like Adam Smith. They were trying to free the economy from the dead weight of aristocratic landlords and other rent extractors who only extract wealth, not contributing to production. WjtWeston (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)