Is profit different from unfair tax? - Page 6

rah · October 22, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

You guys really don't think things through well. Of course people will not train to be doctors unless they are compensated for doing so. It's really not the problem that you guys are making it out to be.

Then who decides proper compensation? I'd much prefer the market deciding that then a government. You seem to put a lot of faith in the government. I know of very few (if any) governments that lacked corruption. I'll put my faith in the market because then the individual gets the freedom to choose. I've worked many different careers ranging from construction to corporate management. I have always been free to judge if compensation was adequate to the amount of training and effort put in.

If the govenment decides, then how is inovation compensated. It won't be. Without inovation we'd all be wearing functional burlap sacs and driving Yugos.

MichaeltheGreat · October 22, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Only world communism works.

Global dictatorship and oppression, cool. I'm sure glad you think you can do better under a system where you're going to put yourself in direct competition with that average Burkina Fasoan goatherd. Oh, you're not, that's right, you're going to be one of the party elite who tries to put me in competition with that average Burkina Fasoan goatherd.

Quote:

Sure you can. You just reduce the work week. Then you determine were the shortages are and proceed accordingly.

Sure, and keep wages the same despite lowered individual production. Employ more people and pay them more to do less, and this system will sustain itself how, exactly?

Quote:

Capitalism seems incapable of doing this. Probably because of the class system.

More likely because it's suicidally counterproductive and will result in an ultimate erosion of standards of living AND capital returns.

Quote:

What good is it to blame the individuals as a whole.

I don't blame them as a whole. I blame them individually. Actually, I don't "blame" them at all - I just take the position that they're responsible for the choices they make and the results they achieve.

Quote:

How can a govt justify it's existance when it is based on individual initiative but there aren't enough opportunities for individuals. This doesn't seem strange to you?

I'm not a real big fan of government anyway.

And opportunities for individuals are created by individuals.

Quote:

You're missing the point. I could acquire a 'real' skill, but that skill may not be worth **** after I get my training. I have no control over that.

Sure you do. You have control in the quality of research you do about the susceptibility of that skill to economic forces (such as foreign outsourcing, obsolescence, the business cycles for the relevant industries, etc.) and at assessing early on how good you are at the particular field, based on your general aptitudes and inclinations.

JohnT · October 22, 2003, 18:20

As an ex-landlord, let me tell you a bit about rent...

Back in 1996 my wife and I had a pretty good idea - why not buy a duplex in the NE Atlanta area and live in one half while the other pays the mortgage.

So we did. And we were pretty good landlords, as one would have to be living next to the tenant. One night early in our relationship their heater broke (it was a shivering 48 degrees that night) and they demanded that my wife find a repairman to come fix it - they refused proffered blankets as if affronted by the loss of their "right" to heat. So my wife, with a sprained arm, woozy from pain killers and disrupted sleep, and all by herself (I was on the road working) had to call one 24-hour heater guy after the other, finally shelling out over $300 to replace a ****in' broken fuse.

They freakin' destroyed the place, despite our admonishments and letters; just a nasty, ugly redneck couple whose combined IQ's literally might match Sophies. They had moved in just a month before (before they got the cats) so their place wasn't so bad that you couldn't clean it up for the new landlord by then; seeing that, Laura and I re-did the lease thinking they were going to be good tenants. And at least they weren't loud or disruptive - they were just a couple of the dumbest, slobbiest hicks you find this side of NE Georgia. That woman was the laziest person, and the man kept on bragging somehow about his money problems, i.e., he honestly thought his landlord would just enjoy the story about the bad check he purposely wrote at the strip joint.

We didn't go in there for about 8 months, no inspections, nothing. Then one day I needed to borrow something and OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT SMELL!?!?!?!

Cat urine and feces... old, moldy pizza... motor oil and inscence... dirty dishes and dirty toilets... combined it was a nasal experience of devastating proportions, where your eyes water and your stomach heaves.

Laura and I (in writing and pointing to the appropriate clauses in our four-page, font-size 8 lease agreement) immediately ordered them to clean up and to expect an inspection within a week.

The place was devastated. The carpet had to be replaced, some paneling was broken, the pantry door had a hole in the interior part, the smell of cats, cats, CATS was everywhere. Hell, to clean it up for another tenant would be to sustain costs of up to $5,000 - this on a duplex where my yearly (and evil! Let's not forget evil!) rents totalled $7,500. We could've gotten $2,500 more, but we were being nice to this poor couple - exactly like you want, you see.

We decided to just go ahead and sell the house, and let the new landlord deal with it. Luckily we bought cheap in one of the three hottest housing markets of the mid-late 1990s, the NE Atlanta market (the "Platinum Triangle" as it was called by local realtors). When we put the house back up for sale, we ignored the damage and asked for as much as we thought we could get - $119,900 (we paid $92,000). 6 hours after it was listed, we had an offer matching our price from yet another greedy capitalist looking to allow these people to trash their property.

Moral of the story, Kid: Some people just aren't even worth the rent they pay.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 18:24

This topic again! I LOVE IT!

Kid, IMO, the problem is that you fail to comprehend that the market DOES provide fair (without quotes) compensation for work performed.

That compensation is based upon it's relative value to those who make use of whatever service you're providing. (ie - if you charge me 40k to mow my lawn, I'll do it myself...on the other hand, if I need brain surgery, I'll pay 40k for that service...it is more valuable to me than having you mow my lawn for that same price).

That valuation is not arbitrary and cannot be set by some centralized body. That's why it's left to the market. Those who value service X at price Y buy. Those who don't...don't. The power to decide is thus in the hands of the individual.

You also fail to realize that you ARE paid fairly for your work.

You make shoes in a shoe factory. The factory owner pays you. Does he pay you the full value of the shoe? Nope, cos you didn't put the full value of the shoe INTO it. The machines he owns helped you, so he keeps a cut for himself.

The shoes aren't as valuable sitting at your workbench as they are in Wal-Mart, so they guy who TAKES them to Wal-Mart won't pay you full price for them either, cos he gets a cut by adding value to the shoes, in the form of taking them to where the customers are (cos they ain't at your workbench).

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Sure, and keep wages the same despite lowered individual production. Employ more people and pay them more to do less, and this system will sustain itself how, exactly?

Production is the same. I didn't say anything about less total compensation so you figure it out.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
More likely because it's suicidally counterproductive and will result in an ultimate erosion of standards of living AND capital returns.

The fact that capitalism doesn't provide jobs for everyone is erosive to living standards, but you don't see that.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I don't blame them as a whole. I blame them individually. Actually, I don't "blame" them at all - I just take the position that they're responsible for the choices they make and the results they achieve.

Well we aren't talking about individuals individually. We are talking about them as a group. We are talking about a system. Yes! capitalism is an economic system, like it or not.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm not a real big fan of government anyway.

And opportunities for individuals are created by individuals.

Convenient for you to let the govt off the hook like that, but it's not going to cut it.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Sure you do. You have control in the quality of research you do about the susceptibility of that skill to economic forces (such as foreign outsourcing, obsolescence, the business cycles for the relevant industries, etc.) and at assessing early on how good you are at the particular field, based on your general aptitudes and inclinations.

I only have control over myself and the decisions that I make. I have no control over others and no knowledge of the decisions that they will make. I only know that most of them will make bad decisions because they don't know anymore than I do. That's chaos. There is no order. If I have plenty of resources it doesn't really matter, but if I'm poor and I make a bad decision I'm screwed.

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
You also fail to realize that you ARE paid fairly for your work.

So says you. I'll decide that for myself. I don't know how many people who work at Wal-Mart would agree with you. Not too many I guess.

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
As an ex-landlord, let me tell you a bit about rent...

Back in 1996 my wife and I had a pretty good idea - why not buy a duplex in the NE Atlanta area and live in one half while the other pays the mortgage.

So we did. And we were pretty good landlords, as one would have to be living next to the tenant. One night early in our relationship their heater broke (it was a shivering 48 degrees that night) and they demanded that my wife find a repairman to come fix it - they refused proffered blankets as if affronted by the loss of their "right" to heat. So my wife, with a sprained arm, woozy from pain killers and disrupted sleep, and all by herself (I was on the road working) had to call one 24-hour heater guy after the other, finally shelling out over $300 to replace a ****in' broken fuse.

They freakin' destroyed the place, despite our admonishments and letters; just a nasty, ugly redneck couple whose combined IQ's literally might match Sophies. They had moved in just a month before (before they got the cats) so their place wasn't so bad that you couldn't clean it up for the new landlord by then; seeing that, Laura and I re-did the lease thinking they were going to be good tenants. And at least they weren't loud or disruptive - they were just a couple of the dumbest, slobbiest hicks you find this side of NE Georgia. That woman was the laziest person, and the man kept on bragging somehow about his money problems, i.e., he honestly thought his landlord would just enjoy the story about the bad check he purposely wrote at the strip joint.

We didn't go in there for about 8 months, no inspections, nothing. Then one day I needed to borrow something and OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT SMELL!?!?!?!

Cat urine and feces... old, moldy pizza... motor oil and inscence... dirty dishes and dirty toilets... combined it was a nasal experience of devastating proportions, where your eyes water and your stomach heaves.

Laura and I (in writing and pointing to the appropriate clauses in our four-page, font-size 8 lease agreement) immediately ordered them to clean up and to expect an inspection within a week.

The place was devastated. The carpet had to be replaced, some paneling was broken, the pantry door had a hole in the interior part, the smell of cats, cats, CATS was everywhere. Hell, to clean it up for another tenant would be to sustain costs of up to $5,000 - this on a duplex where my yearly (and evil! Let's not forget evil!) rents totalled $7,500. We could've gotten $2,500 more, but we were being nice to this poor couple - exactly like you want, you see.

We decided to just go ahead and sell the house, and let the new landlord deal with it. Luckily we bought cheap in one of the three hottest housing markets of the mid-late 1990s, the NE Atlanta market (the "Platinum Triangle" as it was called by local realtors). When we put the house back up for sale, we ignored the damage and asked for as much as we thought we could get - $119,900 (we paid $92,000). 6 hours after it was listed, we had an offer matching our price from yet another greedy capitalist looking to allow these people to trash their property.

Moral of the story, Kid: Some people just aren't even worth the rent they pay.

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

Then who decides proper compensation? I'd much prefer the market deciding that then a government. You seem to put a lot of faith in the government. I know of very few (if any) governments that lacked corruption. I'll put my faith in the market because then the individual gets the freedom to choose. I've worked many different careers ranging from construction to corporate management. I have always been free to judge if compensation was adequate to the amount of training and effort put in.

If the govenment decides, then how is inovation compensated. It won't be. Without inovation we'd all be wearing functional burlap sacs and driving Yugos.

The people really do determine what they will be paid for their work. They make laws which determine that. That's where the govt comes in. Lots of people think they will be the next Bill Gates so they like things the way they are. I just think people make the wrong decision.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:11

actually, Kid, no you won't decide that for yourself.

Try it.

Go offer to mow someone's lawn for forty thousand dollars, or whatever it is you think you are worth.

And do let me know how many takers you get! I'll be MOST curious to see how your experiment of determining your own "fair wage" is!

The fact is, that if nobody wants the service you are offering at the price you are offering it, nobody will pay your price. Thus, you WON'T set your own "fair wage" standard.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
actually, Kid, no you won't decide that for yourself.

Try it.

Go offer to mow someone's lawn for forty thousand dollars, or whatever it is you think you are worth.

And do let me know how many takers you get! I'll be MOST curious to see how your experiment of determining your own "fair wage" is!

The fact is, that if nobody wants the service you are offering at the price you are offering it, nobody will pay your price. Thus, you WON'T set your own "fair wage" standard.

-=Vel=-

If I mow someones lawn I do get a fair wage, assuming that I own the lawnmower. I don't expect to get 40,000 dollars for it. I don't know how you got that idea.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:17

Well, cos it's all about equality, you know? It's so unfair and exploitive if the brain surgeon is getting 40k for two freakin' little hours of work and you go out there sweating and struggling to mow a big lawn that takes THREE hours and don't make the same money! ::gasp!:: That's just criminal! Right?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, cos it's all about equality, you know? It's so unfair and exploitive if the brain surgeon is getting 40k for two freakin' little hours of work and you go out there sweating and struggling to mow a big lawn that takes THREE hours and don't make the same money! ::gasp!:: That's just criminal! Right?

-=Vel=-

Can't really make too much money mowing lawns anyway. People should mow their own lawns. I guess if I have to go and mow lawns because I was out of work for so long that would be horrible. The fact is that people do have to do a lot of weird stuff to make ends meet because our economic system is so disfunctional. Is that what you are talking about?

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:29

Nope. I'm talking about the FACT that all work is not equal.

"Equality" is a big thing for you. A day's wage for a day's work, and everybody has to be nice and equal.

Therefore, it follows that the two hours you spend mowing lawns should be equal, in dollar value, to the two hours the brain surgeon spends at an operation.

So....by your own definition then, the lawn mowing guy needs to be compensated 40k.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope. I'm talking about the FACT that all work is not equal.

"Equality" is a big thing for you. A day's wage for a day's work, and everybody has to be nice and equal.

Therefore, it follows that the two hours you spend mowing lawns should be equal, in dollar value, to the two hours the brain surgeon spends at an operation.

So....by your own definition then, the lawn mowing guy needs to be compensated 40k.

-=Vel=-

First I said that people should mow their own lawns. I did not say that people should be paid 40k for doing it.

Yes I'm into equality. I guess you aren't because you recieve priviledged treatmeant.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:34

Who are you to tell people that they should arbitrarily mow their own lawns?! Is that not work? I mean, is not the act of mowing a lawn work? And if so, then it falls under the EXACT same "equality yardstick" as every other kind of work

Thus, per your definition, if someone is mowing lawns and making less per hour than the brain surgeon, that person is being exploited, is he, or is he not?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Who are you to tell people that they should arbitrarily mow their own lawns?! Is that not work? I mean, is not the act of mowing a lawn work? And if so, then it falls under the EXACT same "equality yardstick" as every other kind of work

Thus, per your definition, if someone is mowing lawns and making less per hour than the brain surgeon, that person is being exploited, is he, or is he not?

-=Vel=-

Hey if I'm going to mow your lawn you better mow mine. And my lawn better be just as big as yours

People shouldn't mow lawns for a living. That in itself is exploitive the way I see it. Judgement call I guess.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:40

Okay, if you don't like that example, then we'll switch to picking lettuce. Should everyone have to pick their own lettuce too? If that is an acceptable example to you, then should not the lettuce picker make the same, or extremely close to the per hour wage of the brain surgeon. That IS the sort of equality you're preaching, yes?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay, if you don't like that example, then we'll switch to picking lettuce. Should everyone have to pick their own lettuce too? If that is an acceptable example to you, then should not the lettuce picker make the same, or extremely close to the per hour wage of the brain surgeon. That IS the sort of equality you're preaching, yes?

-=Vel=-

The surgeon should be compensated for his training and his value to society. The lettuce picker should be compensated for doing a hard job. I don't know how they would compare. People shouldn't be forced to do either one. They should be happy to do the job for the compensation and society should also be happy that they aren't getting too much.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:48

That sounds like a waffle answer from the guy who, not two pages ago, said that wages should be at or near equal for everyone.

Having a change of heart now that you're confronted by actual jobs to compare?

I can certainly understand why, because when you get down to the brass tacks of it, your whole strange notion of "equality" simply falls apart. I don't blame you a bit for not wanting to stand too close to it as it collapses.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
That sounds like a waffle answer from the guy who, not two pages ago, said that wages should be at or near equal for everyone.

Having a change of heart now that you're confronted by actual jobs to compare?

I can certainly understand why, because when you get down to the brass tacks of it, your whole strange notion of "equality" simply falls apart. I don't blame you a bit for not wanting to stand too close to it as it collapses.

-=Vel=-

As you have already established all work is not equal. So I don't see the problem. I never said that people should recieve the same compensation for different work.

Berzerker · October 22, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Only world communism works.

Communism won't work on a smaller scale but it will on a world scale?

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:54

TELL me you're kidding?

The entire crux of this worn-out argument is that people who make more money are in a position to be exploitive of people who make less money.

Time and time again when you spout this mantra, the cry is for at or near equal wages for everyone. Universally equal wages, regardless of the work, so that nobody is in a position to exploit anybody else.

Or do you now not recall ever having said anything resembling that?

:: shakes head, amazed::

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 19:55

Berz - Exactly.....it's proven to be heinously broken on the micro scale, so obviously the solution is to globalize the broken system!

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Berz - Exactly.....it's proven to be heinously broken on the micro scale, so obviously the solution is to globalize the broken system!

-=Vel=-

It's about class struggle. It's not about how one state has done compared to another. When there are no more states the workers will control the means of production. Not before. By definition there can be no communist govt while the capitalists control the world.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 20:28

Didn't wanna touch that other reply I see....prolly for the best...

As to the rest. A bit of advice then? Don't hold your breath waiting for the glorious revolution to come, 'k?

-=Vel=-

Berzerker · October 22, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

It's about class struggle. It's not about how one state has done compared to another. When there are no more states the workers will control the means of production. Not before. By definition there can be no communist govt while the capitalists control the world.

Why do you think the "capitalists" control the world? Because the communists could not compete. And you conclude from this that communism is the superior system when it couldn't even compete with this "failure" called capitalism? Tell us Kid, how many people will have to be slaughtered to achieve your goal of worldwide communism? I guess you wouldn't know because that depends on how many people resist having y'all run their lives...

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Didn't wanna touch that other reply I see....prolly for the best...

I reply to everything of importance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to the rest. A bit of advice then? Don't hold your breath waiting for the glorious revolution to come, 'k?

-=Vel=-

Don't expect capitalism to hold on much longer.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 20:37

No...you reply to everything that doesn't shoot gigantic holes in your argument. The stuff that shatters your arguments, you conveniently ignore. Can't say I blame you...a bit difficult to debate a position once it has been thoroughly gutted, and given the track record of your communist utopia, I'd say the big red pony is about as beaten to death as a creature could possibly be.

Oh....in another of these threads, you mentioned that you were unemployed.

We're equal now...me too. I walked away from my job on my 35th birthday, knowing that the job market sucks. So now we're alllll nice and equal.

This will make a good experiment, I think.

You keep applying the principles YOU cling to, and I'll apply mine. We'll compare notes in the weeks ahead and see how we both fare. Since we're starting off on an equal footing (both unemployed) that's about as "fair" as it gets, yes?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · October 22, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why do you think the "capitalists" control the world? Because the communists could not compete.

The time was not right.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
And you conclude from this that communism is the superior system when it couldn't even compete with this "failure" called capitalism?

Communism is the superior system because it will be the world system long after the ashes of capitalism have blown away. Much the same way that capitalism is superior to Feudalism.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Tell us Kid, how many people will have to be slaughtered to achieve your goal of worldwide communism? I guess you wouldn't know because that depends on how many people resist having y'all run their lives...

Not many people will have to die, and not many people will resist. It will be plain that capitalism is a huge failure. That's not to say that there won't be suffering, but the suffering will be caused by the failure of the old system.

Velociryx · October 22, 2003, 20:39

Just like it'll one day be plain that "electricity" was a huge failure, and we'll all go back to the good ol' days, eh Kid?

-=Vel=-

PS: Oh, and...see my reply above.