Is profit different from unfair tax? Part 2 - Page 5

The diplomat · November 7, 2003, 13:31

There is a huge difference between profit and unfair taxes. Profit is moral, unfair taxes are not! It is as simple as that!

Az · November 7, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
There is a huge difference between profit and unfair taxes. Profit is moral, unfair taxes are not! It is as simple as that!

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 14:32

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Well that made absolutely no sense. But then, why am I not surprised.

Well if making profit is a burden for you, why do you do it? Does that help?

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Back to choice.
What choice does a communist have when the planners decide they need ditch diggers and you have to become one? Or are you saying that you will still have the choice not to be a ditch digger?

I don't mind digging my fair share of ditches. I don't want to pay you for 'allowing' me to dig ditches just because I can't afford a shovel.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by zippy99
This is just unbelievable. Kid, what benefits did Bill Gates have in highschool that you don't now? As far as I can see, you are complaining that you don't have the wealth he has, despite the fact that you have not put in any of the work or taken any of the risks he did.

You don't know how much work I've done. I've done plenty I can assure you.

Quote:

Originally posted by zippy99
Sitting doing nothing and complaining that life isn't fair is pathetic. How about inventing a new operating system, working for 20-30 years to make this the world standard and then retire on your billions? Or is that just too much hard work?

Why don't you do it?

Japher · November 7, 2003, 14:47

Quote:

I don't want to pay you for 'allowing' me to dig ditches just because I can't afford a shovel.

No one is stopping you from using your hands or making your own shovel...

Yet, if you are a ditch digger you are paid to dig ditches not make shovels. Say you can get paid 1 monetary unit per foot of ditch. In a day you can dig, say, 5 feet of ditch with your hands giving you 5 monetary units. I shovel costs 20 units! Yet with a shovel you can dig 15-20 feet of ditch in a day giving you a very high rate of return. You probably would buy the shovel, besides it would keep your hands cleaner.

The shovel maker, on the other hand, is paid to make shovels. He makes 5 monetary units per shovel, and in a day he can make about 5 shovels. Giving him 25 money units per day (if all are sold). Why should he make 5 more units than you!? You ask. Because it takes an incremental amount more skill of work to make a shovel than it does to dig a ditch. Who determines this? Work force numbers, training, demand, etc... That person put more work into learning how to make a shovel than you did on how to dig ditches.

Truth be told you will prbably have to pay more than 20 units for a shovel since you won't be needing to buy a shovel all to often, thus demand will drop and the shovel maker will not be making 25 units every day.

So, your not paying someone to allow you to dig a ditch. You are paying someone to allow you to dig a ditch better/quicker. You are paying someone to allow others to dig a ditch better/quicker as well. Since if the shovel makers only client was you, you'd both be worse off.

Subsiquently, if more people want to buy shovels, and the poor ol' shovel maker can only make 5 per day he will a) hire someone else to help or b) buy a machine (a shovel if you will) to get them made better/faster...

What is wrong with this Kid? Are you saying that the shovel maker should take option (a) or option (b) for the mere sake of creating jobs?

rah · November 7, 2003, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't mind digging my fair share of ditches. I don't want to pay you for 'allowing' me to dig ditches just because I can't afford a shovel.

Avoiding the obvious answer again I see. The question was about choice. Your answer seems to be that you don't see to care if you have choice (I don't mind digging my fair share). Yet most of your argument against is about workers being exploited and having no choice. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
No one is stopping you from using your hands or making your own shovel...

Quote:

What is wrong with this Kid? Are you saying that the shovel maker should take option (a) or option (b) for the mere sake of creating jobs?

I'm certainly not saying that people should just work to keep them busy.

Frankly, I didn't get your point, but maybe this will clear up some misunderstanding. The capitalist system requires that there be two types of people. One type is the capitalist, who owns property and doesn't have to work. The other type of person is the worker, who doesn't own property and has to work. A capitalist can work for himself but the key distinction is that he doesn't have to work for anyone else, because he can just aquire whatever he needs to work for himself and he makes more money that way. That's why everyone can't be a capitalist, because everyone would be working for themselves. True, capitalism used to work very much like that with the cottage industries, but we can't go back to those days even if we wanted.

So capitalism needs people without property. So you can talk all you want about everyone being a capitalist, but it's not going to happen. So it's the system which DOES prevent workers from owning the means of production. The system can not survive unless it does so.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Avoiding the obvious answer again I see. The question was about choice. Your answer seems to be that you don't see to care if you have choice (I don't mind digging my fair share). Yet most of your argument against is about workers being exploited and having no choice. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

I claim that workers don't have the choice to own the means of production in the capitalist system. I never claimed that workers would have a choice about what work they would do in a communist system. That wouldn't work for obvious reasons. We all may choose to do the same work wouldn't we? Individual choice is not necessary to make communism fair. The only thing that is required is that people do an equal amount of work (if they are capable) and that they are compensated equally.

Arrian · November 7, 2003, 16:08

Quote:

The capitalist system requires that there be two types of people. One type is the capitalist, who owns property and doesn't have to work.

No.

No goddamnit, no.

This basic underlying assumption that all "capitalists" (those who own some or all of a company, we'll say) do not work is what's ****ing up your worldview.

Secondly, that is an extreme oversimplification. I'm a "worker" because I have a 9-to-5 type job and am paid a salary. But I also own stock (401k/IRA accounts), which means I'm part owner of various corporations (though the percentage is miniscule). I am, therefore, BOTH capitalist and worker.

-Arrian

Arrian · November 7, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Individual choice is not necessary to make communism fair. The only thing that is required is that people do an equal amount of work (if they are capable) and that they are compensated equally.

Fair in your mind. No ****ing way am I going to let the government decide for me what my job is.

You'll just have to line me up against the wall, Kid.

-Arrian

Q Classic · November 7, 2003, 16:10

back to the original question, as to whether profit is different from unfair tax?

the answer is still yes.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

No.

No goddamnit, no.

This basic underlying assumption that all "capitalists" (those who own some or all of a company, we'll say) do not work is what's ****ing up your worldview.

Secondly, that is an extreme oversimplification. I'm a "worker" because I have a 9-to-5 type job and am paid a salary. But I also own stock (401k/IRA accounts), which means I'm part owner of various corporations (though the percentage is miniscule). I am, therefore, BOTH capitalist and worker.

-Arrian

Bill Gates is not going to be working at Burger King, not as long as he has his billions anyway. Even though you have saved some of your money you will not be a billionaire. Some of us may become billionaires, but the great majority will be working for someone else until we die. In short, you're still a worker.

rah · November 7, 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
We all may choose to do the same work wouldn't we? Individual choice is not necessary to make communism fair. The only thing that is required is that people do an equal amount of work (if they are capable) and that they are compensated equally.

As determined by those uncoruptable planners.

No thank you. I don't want to be told that I have to dig ditches. I have before and went back to school so I would never have to again. Capitalism has given me much more freedom. And my hard work has paid off quite well.

Japher · November 7, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

, but the great majority will be working for someone else until we die

That's a choice each person has to make; work for someone else or work for myself.

A lot of people would rather devote their time to their family, hobbies, or other things instead of devoting that time to building their own buisness (where the billions can be made). It's all a choice = freedom = opportunity cost = time = money.

rah · November 7, 2003, 16:31

Yeah, 8 years ago, I opened my own consulting company, but after realizing how much of my time went to hustling up new business, (which I guess Kid doesn't regard as work, since I was an evil president) I decided that corporate life did have some advantages, and while I make a little less, I have much more free time to play that evil capitalist game, GOLF>

Arrian · November 7, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Even though you have saved some of your money you will not be a billionaire. Some of us may become billionaires, but the great majority will be working for someone else until we die. In short, you're still a worker.

Goddamn server ate my post.

Anyway, yeah I'm a worker. I prefer it that way. I *could* scrape together what I've saved, go get a loan, and open a business of my own, had I the inclination. I don't do that for several reasons, including the fact that it's risky and that I know it would mean more work for me. See, though I'm not a billionare (fine by me, frankly), I work my 8 hours and I go home, and that's that. Not so with most business owners - particularly small businesses.

Not everyone will own their own businesses, that's true. But, like me, many DON'T WANT TO. Rather than "own the means of production" and devote ridiculous amounts of my life to making sure the business is profitable, I'd frankly rather work my 8 hrs and leave work at the office at the end of the day.

-Arrian

Japher · November 7, 2003, 16:44

I have been tossing around the idea of starting my own buisness in a field totally different than what I do now. I have studied for about 2 years on it now, and really have made up my mind. Coorprate life is so much laxer. I will never make the big bucks doing what I am doing, but at the same time I am home for my wife every night (something I use to not be able to say) and I know that I will make enough to cut a peice of the pie, put my kids through school, and retire comfortably.

Am I being exploited? On one level yeah, because I know that I could do so much more for myself. On another level no, because I chose not to do that. Thus, I choose to be exploited. As I see it you are either exploited or being exploited; there are really no inbetweens. Yet, this is a choice, so in the grand scheme of things you really aren't being exploited rather you are letting others exploit you... I guess the thing is; you can't be exploited if you have the power to make the choice.