Is profit different from unfair tax? - Page 12

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber

That one made me laugh-- people with degrees make on avergae way way more than folks without one but I guess I'll take your word for it that people aren't compeensated for education

Actually a degree doesn't really pay you anything. When you include the costs involved including the work it takes and the opportunity cost (lost wages). You do get paid a premium however when you are trained in a specialized area where there is a shortage. You don't just get paid for being educated though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and in Calgary an articling lawyer at a big firm makes about 60K while a 4th year associate makes around 100K . They are both expected to bill a similar number of hours and bonuses are possible but the 4th years bills at a higher rate since the market rates value experience . people pay a higher hourlu rate for a more experienced lawyer so how doesn't the market directly compensate for experience again ??

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but do you agree that you should be compensated for any experience that you have?

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
My initial response was making a point to Kid (I assume he's reading side-debates).

When I have time.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Merely because you haven't the slightest idea what a CEO or other executives bring to a company?

They organize production. They are comparable to the planners in the new system. A system where the decision makers compensate themselves so highly is corrupt any way you look at it. This wont do. I won't support such a system, communist or capitalist.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO
Profit is a return on RISK. This is a very simple but highly accurate definition.

It is a simple definition for sure, however it is not accurate. You are simply looking at it from a business perspective instead of the employees perspective.

The question is who's property is being risked. If I don't work then how can I risk losing the benefits of my work? I can't, but I can steal something and then risk it. Then of course I'm not the rightfull owner of the benefits.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Mordoch

Its a really bad definition. Basicly Kid is trying to completely ignore the fact that owners often put a huge amount of work into their company.

You missed my discussion with MtG about the owner/manager. I suggest you go back a few pages.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE from the Red camp to answer the "nanny" question.

Are you guys so afraid of having to be personally accountable for your success or failure? So frightened of having to be responsible for your own future that you're willing to sign your life away to the state? Do you really believe that most people are so inept that they cannot decide what's best for themselves....themselves?

Mystifying.

-=Vel=-

People can and do make the best decisions for themselves, and I'm glad that you agree. The problem is that they suffer in the current system even though they have made the best decision for themself. Reason: exploitation and class conflict.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

YOU ARE WRONG

This time you put the super caps at the bottom of your post, but I still didn't read it.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
But how would the concept of rent reduce freedom? Going back to Vel's example, you are VOLUNTARILY agreeing to give Vel 1 units per day, in exchange for the ability to produce 9 extra units per day for yourself.

Again with the freedom to make the best decision available. How am I free if the best decision to make results in my own exploitation?

Japher · October 27, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

People can and do make the best decisions for themselves, and I'm glad that you agree. The problem is that they suffer in the current system even though they have made the best decision for themself. Reason: exploitation and class conflict.

Being accountable for your actions does not mean "making your own decision" or "not suffering"... It means not blaming lack of success on "exploitation" or "class conflict". Those are not reasons they are just excuses. You ask "who oppressed me?!" when you should be asking "who helped me?" and "why did I fail?"...

Remember: whenever you point a finger at someone else there are three more pointing right back at you

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
"But if I owned it, I wouldn't be subject to such constraints."

That's very true, and there's nothing stoping you from making your own.

There is a little thing called money that we are all talking about.

Kidicious · October 27, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher

Being accountable for your actions does not mean "making your own decision" or "not suffering"... It means not blaming lack of success on "exploitation" or "class conflict". Those are not reasons they are just excuses. You ask "who oppressed me?!" when you should be asking "who helped me?" and "why did I fail?"...

Remember: whenever you point a finger at someone else there are three more pointing right back at you

You have totally missed my point. Responsible, rational people go broke.

Japher · October 27, 2003, 16:49

I know Kid, just giving you greif.

I totally disagree with your communist propoganda, but it makes you more humane than me. I wish you great success in all you do, but if your goal of financial freedom is never obtained don't go blaming us "greedy" people for playing the game at hand.

Also, rational people go broke because of bad decissions or "acts of god" not because of the underlying economic principles decided to rip them off.

JohnT · October 27, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

They organize production. They are comparable to the planners in the new system. A system where the decision makers compensate themselves so highly is corrupt any way you look at it. This wont do. I won't support such a system, communist or capitalist.

But why in Gods name should or would I take on the responsibility and burden of ensuring that I make the payrolls that families depend upon for a mere $75,000 a year? Shiite, might as well be a worker-bee making $25,000/year moving sacks of potatos from one side of the warehouse to the other if that's all I'm going to get compensated for the sleepless nights, the headaches, the worry.

And no, I am looking at it and a system in which the decision makers and risk takers compensate themselves as high as they do in the US is not corrupt - it's incentivizing. But thanks for trying!

Imran Siddiqui · October 27, 2003, 17:15

Hit the buzzer, John... Kid has got the wrong answer again

.

Arrian · October 27, 2003, 17:18

MUST STOP LOOKING AT THE TRAIN WRECK. MUST STOP...

-Arrian

Arrian · October 27, 2003, 17:19

The Apolyton quote generator gave me this after my last post:

"A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill.

You rock, Winston!

-Arrian

rah · October 27, 2003, 17:42

Have to give him some credit. He gets buried on every point he tries to make. It just bounces off of him and he continues on like the enegizer Bunny.

The Andy-Man · October 27, 2003, 17:57

leave the poor kid alone.

One day he will have grown up, prolly be an insurance sales men with a mortgage and all the rest of it.

'I was not radical when young, for fear of being conservative when old.'

can't remember who said it

Japher · October 27, 2003, 18:01

Kid ain't that young though.

People generally become more and more conservative the less dependent they become on the government.

JohnT · October 27, 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hit the buzzer, John... Kid has got the wrong answer again

.

Bob Barker: "If that's the case, he can collect his valuable parting gifts as we introduce the next contestant... Johnny?"

Johnny Olson: "DuncanK! DuncanK, come on down! You are the new contestant on 'The Price is Immoral!' "[applause]

The Andy-Man · October 27, 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
People generally become more and more conservative the less dependent they become on the government.

thats true, i never really thought of it that way

rah · October 27, 2003, 18:24

More like, "Now that I have mine, I don't want to give it to anybody else."

Japher · October 27, 2003, 18:27

I don't have mine. Yet, I still don't want anyone to have it when/if I get it.

rah · October 27, 2003, 18:29

That's because giving it to them is helping to keep you from getting it.

The Andy-Man · October 27, 2003, 18:35

'i worked hard for this, and now you wanna take it away?'

Japher · October 27, 2003, 18:35

It's also helping to keep them from getting it too. Unfortunatly, they don't see that.

Kuciwalker · October 27, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
This time you put the super caps at the bottom of your post, but I still didn't read it.

Wonderful refutation, Kid.

The Andy-Man · October 27, 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Wonderful refutation, Kid.

yes, very much in the vain of:

You work harder then me and get paid more money, thats not fair'

Ramo · October 28, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

You seem to be implying that the fact that you don't own the tool is unfair in some way.

And it is.

Quote:

I'm not talking about freedom from the state. I'm talking about freedom from coercion/freedom from the initiation of force against yourself.

Sure, but I happen to think that force can be wrong regardless of who initiates it.

Quote:

So you think freedom means the financial ability to do/buy things, rather than the right to do/buy things?

If by "right," you mean state sanction, freedom means both.

Quote:

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. One can have the financial ability to do/buy things, but if the state says "no", then the financial ability is meaningless, and certainly not an example of freedom.

On the other side of the coin, though, you can be free to do something without being able to afford to do that thing. You do see the difference, right?

No. Lack of money can be even more of a constraint (i.e. lack of freedom) than a law. For instance, I smoked up without much worry of being imprisoned this weekend, but for instance if I wanted to get a car, it'd be much, much more difficult.

Quote:

Regardless, the morality of coercion is always a valid point, whether it is addressed or not. Put another way, Vel's scenario is moral for reasons that he didn't state, while your scenario is immoral for reasons you didn't state.

But that isn't relevant as I was addressing Vel's argument, not something that didn't exist in his post.

Quote:

So a doctor shouldn't make, say, 10 times as much money as a janitor? I bet the doctor spent 10 times as much time and money on his education, though..

Why should the amount of money spent on education be proportion to the wage a worker recieves?

Ramo · October 28, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

Unfortunately, Ramo, I am unable to find anything in these definitions that compels capitalists and workers to be separate "classes." As one who both has put his own money and effort (were you working at 12:30 last night, after being in the office for 10 hours that day?) in businesses that I own significant chunks of equity, your and Kids assertion that I am not a capitalist kinda hurts me - what do I have to do to get you to wish for my elimination based upon my work title? Just stop working? But I enjoy it...

I don't want your elimination. I just want to see democracy in your work-place.

Quote:

*points to Ramo's avatar*

Quiet you.