Why is making tons of money so important? (status, buying, taxes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are making a heck of a lot of assumptions about me and employers... You sound naive... I am not taking profit to "buy a new Corvette" and live the big life... My profit "cut" is re-invested back into growing the business so that it can pay more people a very competitive wage and benefits.
That is bull. I can guarantee you are living much better then any single one of your employees, probably significantly so. Its not because you create any more value, its simply because you are taking a cut of their value for your "risk".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
If I evenly divided all my profits into the salaries of my employees (most of whom do not have the business investment experience or desire), the business would not make enough profit to cover expenditures to build infrastructure, buy product/capital equipment, mitigate risk via insurance, etc. etc. But destruction of business is what you support, right?
If your net income is endlessly added to retained earnings, and your grubby paws dont touch it, and you are only making a wage representitive of your labor value, then you are essentially operating at 0 personal profit.
However, Im sure thats not the case. You probably add some profit to retained earnings, and then make a huge distribution (or draw on equity) to yourself multiple times a year. I havent seen a small to medium business yet that the owners didnt use it as a personal ATM.
I suppose an alternative would be for GoCubs business to not exist at all. He wouldn't have a company, and his workers wouldn't have been forced to take that job. However there would be no product or service delivered. Maybe that's OK if everyone is equally unemployed or unproductive.
Instead some divine brilliant force (a government?) would run GoCubs company as a non-profit and all will earn the same non-exploitive wage and live happily ever after.
Until one or more of those workers becomes unsatisfied with his/her median existence and says to his non-exploitive boss "I want more. What can I do to earn more? I can do more than Joe and Susie, but I am paid the same." But the boss has nothing to offer because the worker, by working harder, would not benefit himeself since everything he needs in life has already been satisfied. Why should Joe and Susie benefit from his extra effort without also contributing more?
Or is making boatloads of money really not all that important in the grand scheme of things? Is this one of those 1% of the time when my parents are actually wrong?
Not interested in making boatloads, just enough to have some financial security, a nice house, nice car and the ability to enjoy a little.
Unfortunately that American dream, once very achievable by the middle class, is pretty much remaining just that...a dream!
Instead some divine brilliant force (a government?) would run GoCubs company as a non-profit and all will earn the same non-exploitive wage and live happily ever after.
Actually, I propose that its run jointly and democratically and each worker has equal stake in the company they work for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
Until one or more of those workers becomes unsatisfied with his/her median existence and says to his non-exploitive boss "I want more. What can I do to earn more? I can do more than Joe and Susie, but I am paid the same."
Not so. I do not propose any system that rewards different levels of work the same wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
But the boss has nothing to offer because the worker, by working harder, would not benefit himeself since everything he needs in life has already been satisfied. Why should Joe and Susie benefit from his extra effort without also contributing more?
Needs are rarely equivalent to wants. The person working harder would be producing more, therefore, raising his gross labor value. That labor value could be used to buy better quality furniture, a better TV, or a better car then Joe or Susie. The only limit on this would be the purchase of capital and its use to develop private industry.
Money isn't itself a bad thing as it just represents the work someone has done. It's people's fear of losing it or fear of not having it, or concern of not having "enough" which is causes problems.
To the OP: at least from the original post it would seem that you have never been financially independent. I would encourage you to try it out; even while under your parent's roof you can get a job and start assuming your own expenses. At the same time have your parents stop spending money on you. When you do this you'll begin to see your own cost of living (at least partially), what things are worth, and most importantly you'll learn the true and artificially assigned values of what you use.
Randomdude - the core flaw with your favored plan is that most humans are not satisfied with the median existence. After satisfying their most basic needs - food and shelter - they want more. They will work in some way to get more. It could be better food, better shelter, or something they value as luxurious.
Only theorists believe everyone wants to be equal. Inequality is OK as long as people have what they think they earned.
The struggle you highlight between workers and the enslavers doesn't really exist in most places (including the US). The warfare you imagine is what Marxists, Communists, and other variants use to seize power.
Yes the old Maslow hierarchy of needs.
I think just about every human out there seeks to improve their condition. If they didn't, we probably would not exist as a species.
Also what one person wants or needs is different from another person. Say if marxists say everyone has a "right" to a car to make it fair everyone would have exactly the same car. But it wouldn't make a lick of sense. Some people would not need or want a car, some people would need 2 cars, some would want a motorcycle, some would want a different color and so on.
There is no one size that fits all and that is why capitalism has different outcomes for everyone.
Marxism has already been tried with numerous variations and it always collapses into a catastrophe. It assumes everyone wants and needs the same things but we are individuals not a blob of people with one brain.
1. Marxists do not "seize" power. A true Marxist revolution is non violent, and arises from the people up.
2. The struggle does not exist because Americans are stupid and complacent, and will live and die making $10 an hour as long as you dont erase the myth that they might one day be a millionaire which has been drilled in to their head since they were born. If we spent more time educating and advertising the statistical chances people have of never being anything no matter how hard they work, rather then highlighting the one in a million guy who went from shining shoes to driving a Maybach, people may actually catch on to reality and wouldnt be so content.
There again your major flaw is assuming everyone wants or needs the same things and well they don't. Which is why marxists have to seize power via force. 100% of people are not going to go like lambs to a slaughter.
Americans, while there are some stupid people, are some of the most creative and dynamic in the world. We get stuff done and tackle projects few countries would bother with. We have a can do attitude to work and business.
I have known quite a few people on the lower income scale. Many people are content with their $10 an hour job, watching football on the weekends and having pizza and beer on Friday nights. They like the simple things and don't aspire to Maybachs and Gucci.
That is bull. I can guarantee you are living much better then any single one of your employees, probably significantly so. Its not because you create any more value, its simply because you are taking a cut of their value for your "risk".
If your net income is endlessly added to retained earnings, and your grubby paws dont touch it, and you are only making a wage representitive of your labor value, then you are essentially operating at 0 personal profit.
However, Im sure thats not the case. You probably add some profit to retained earnings, and then make a huge distribution (or draw on equity) to yourself multiple times a year. I havent seen a small to medium business yet that the owners didnt use it as a personal ATM.
Aint nothin wrong with that.
Sometimes what you fail to grasp is that to get businesses off the ground, many businesses do not turn any profit for years, but that ultimately whether they do or don't, the owner who assumed the risk deserves the return.
Actually, I propose that its run jointly and democratically and each worker has equal stake in the company they work for.
Not so. I do not propose any system that rewards different levels of work the same wage.
Needs are rarely equivalent to wants. The person working harder would be producing more, therefore, raising his gross labor value. That labor value could be used to buy better quality furniture, a better TV, or a better car then Joe or Susie. The only limit on this would be the purchase of capital and its use to develop private industry.
Ah so who starts this mythical company and puts the capital forward to make it happen and open the doors???
When you need to buy some pencils and pens and printer paper who makes that decision?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.