It means value which is created directly through one's own labor, rather than being traded for. -Meta
Things have value, and things can be owned. Or are you suggesting that things do not have value? -Meta
I believe the issue is a bit more complicated than that. "Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down. Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to set." http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/149-questionable-cause That may be true, but the point is that undocumented immigrants are significantly more limited in who they can work for, which gives employers leverage over them. But like I said, that point is moot, due to the variety of other job types needing to be done and of which there are plenty of idle Americans ready to take them on. You're wrong. 'Political will' simply refers to politicians' and lawmakers' willingness or unwilling to do something. ??? Where did I say that ??? Stop Pulling Numbers Out Of Thin Air.... The question is, if a business can reduce its labor costs without negatively affecting profits, then why hasn't such a business already done so? -Meta
We weren't talking about payroll taxes. We were discussing taxes on the net profits of companies and or the owners. A tax on profits does not change the cost of your employees, nor does it reduce their value. -Meta
Obviously people can value things. However value isn't a thing, nor can it be created. Perhaps you mean "direct thing creation"? Still having trouble with this "direct value creation" thing. Can you maybe give an example?
Well tbh the two phrasings, "value creation" and "thing creation" are very close in meaning, and for the purpose of our conversation it probably doesn't matter all that much which one we operate with,....at least for now... But there is a subtle difference between them which is why I choose to use one phrasing over the other. Say that I have some leather, and that I also have some thread. It is the case that both the leather and the thread each have their own value, which I may or may not have contributed to myself. For this example, lets say that I didn't. If I were to then put forth some amount of effort, to turn that leather and thread into a shoe (the shoe being a thing) then chances are I have added value to the leather and thread such that, combined, they have more net value than they had when they were separate. And it is that extra bit of value which is what I have created through my labor, while the initial value of the leather and thread which still exist within the shoe, was not created by me (in this case). So while its accurate to say "I created the shoe (a thing)", it technically is not correct to state that my labor alone is soley responsible for 100% of the shoes value (in this case). Make sense?....I might be able to come up with a more simplified example if not.... -Meta
That's all the same thing to a business owner. Taxes are taxes that reduce profits. My point. I'm willing to reduce profits if it means keeping my staff on the payroll through slow periods. I'm not willing to reduce profits to give more too the government, and a a result my employees will suffer.
Lol, whether a tax is based on net profits or number of employees makes a huge difference when it comes to cost/benefit analysis of individual employees. And why would you do such a thing? You're hedging your bets on the chance that keeping them on will save you money latter on down the road, right? But if that's the case, a tax increase on net profits does not change the fact that keeping those employees on is likely to save you money and increase your profits over the long run, and as such, getting rid of them in response to a tax increase on your profits does not make any sense. In doing so, you'd essentially just be throwing money away, something that any good business owner knows not to do. -Meta
Straight up Meta. It's fun to see these conservatives who claim to be business persons and then show they don't have a clue.
Yeah, but aren't talking about cost/benefit analysis of employees, we are talking about profits. The point is, you simply have little ability to force me to contribute my profits to government by way of taxation. Either I raise prices or reduce overhead to maintain. Wealth redistribution through taxation is a failure. Partially. But mostly because people I hire are typically very skilled professionals whom as value each year they are retained. They are not easily replaced. I demand a very specific skill set, so when I find them, often times I am better off keeping them even if times are slow. And I'm ok with that. It's about my bottom line. That is what you aren't getting. Let's say I make 200k in gross revenue. I pay two employees 25k a piece. Other overhead costs are another 50k. I would have net profits of 100k. I pay 28% tax on that profit, so I put 72,000 in my pocket. So some liberal comes into office and says "that isn't fair, you need to pay more" and jacks the rate up to 40%. I'm going to lay one of those workers and hire two part time workers at 10k a piece. Jack the cost of services to the end consumer to the tune of 225k gross. Now my expenses are 95k. My net profits are 130k at 40% and I put 78k in my pocket. You can't force me to give up my profits through taxation until they become so punitive, I simply leave for greener pastures. Let's be honest here anyway. It will never be enough. That additional revenue from taxation will be misspent and everybody on the left will be advocating for another hike. My competition will do the same. So All you have done is increase the cost of the services I sell and reduced employees to lower salary part time workers. Not a Great economic plan. Doesn't make any sense to me.
As we have already agreed, ownership of scarce, rivalrous resources is acquired via title transfer. You own the thread and the leather because presumably someone transferred ownership of them to you. You own the shoes you made because you already owned the thread and the leather. Your point about value creation is unrelated to ownership.
Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em. But my goal here is to help folks understand the logical inconsistencies, and on that particular subject, it doesn't seem to be working, ...at least not yet. But I wont give up... -Meta
We are talking about cost/benefit analysis of employees/their effect on net profits, ie: whether keeping them on will lead to increased profits overall, or whether it makes more sense to let them go. Just as with employees, if you could simply raise your prices and maintain customers such that your profits increased, then why haven't you done it already? Like I said.....you're hedging your bets on the chance that keeping these high skilled high value employees around will save you money latter on in not having to expend effort replacing them. That same reasoning should hold true regardless of what the tax rate on your net profits is. Again, if you could do all of those things and increase your profit margin, then, as a good business owner who wants nothing but to maximize profits, you should be doing those things right now! If you just haven't been motivated enough yet to optimize your business, and less money in your pocket provides that motivation, then perhaps that really isn't such a bad thing. Most companies though always strive to be as efficient and optimized as possible, and for a company that is already as optimized as it can be, a tax on that company's net profits, again, is not going to somehow enable them to become more optimized. Fact of the matter is, you should be optimized now, especially if your only goal is maximizing profits, and if your prices and employees are such that you are optimized, then any changes in that set up will only result in you throwing money away. If you do that in response to a tax increase on net profits, it will be like saying: "I was making 72k after taxes before,...now I'm only getting 65k, so I'm going to layoff some workers, hire more part timers, or increase my prices, and.....oops,....now I'm only making 50k."......Like I said,....doesn't make any sense. -Meta
You're wrong. Not only is value creation related to ownership,....it is central to the concept. Again, in addition to gaining ownership of a thing by justly trading it for something else, one can come to justly own a thing, by creating that thing's value through their own labor. Presumably,....but not necessarily. -Meta
Not really. You own the shoes because you owned the thread and leather. If you didn't own the thread and leather, then you would not have ownership of the shoes. The point is that the political moral gray area is instituting a system whereby people's property is taken from them and distributed to others.
I don't understand your objection....are you saying one doesn't justly own that which they created? -Meta
If created from resources they owned already they do. If they do not own the resources they created them from then they do not.
And what if they create a thing out of resources that no one owns or by utilizing a set of resources which are shared between multiple owners? -Meta
If they own the raw materials, then yes. If they don't, then no. The point is that the political moral gray area is instituting a system whereby people's property is taken from them and distributed to others.
I agree that if they justly own 100% of the raw materials, then they justly own 100% of the finished product. I also agree that id=f they do not own 100% of the raw materials, then they don't own the finished product,...or at least not 100% of it. But out of curiosity, what if they create a thing out of resources that no one owns? Or what if they create something by utilizing a set of resources which are shared between multiple owners? And, finally getting back to the subject of taxes, who exactly is it that creates our "U.S." currency? And is it or is it not the case that they justly own the raw resources used to create it? You say people are unjustly having their property distributed to others, and I'm assuming you're referring to taxes, but based on the things we discussed, I just don't see that view as being accurate. -Meta
You make a very good argument for de-socializing money. There's no good reason for the government to claim ownership of all our money. I'm in favor of separation of money and state.
