Is profit different from unfair tax?

[rah]

Originally posted by Kidicious


We are going in circles.

If you have built the tool and someone else uses it you should be compensated for your labor. No problem there. The problem is when you profit from my labor. That is different from simply being compensated for your labor.

Hmmm what's the difference of paying x amount for a tool vs a % of labor.

Assume a tractor. Most farmers can not afford the full cost of a tractor and pay it off a little bit at a time. Which can actually be computed as a % of their labor. What's the difference?

What am I missing?

[Japher]

Supply and Demand

People are compensated on what the buyer/user feels to be the worth of the service/good supplied by that the specialist...

In some cases a share of the pie is what it is worth. If a patented invention to increase production is worth paying the cost of 2/units per 20/units made when the invention increase the units made by 10/day than that is what they are compenstated. In cases in which this happens there is generally a time limit (life of patent) and yearly cap on earnings. Also, the person using the tool to increase production does, in some cases, pass the cost on to the consumer/public in the cost of the good produced, though ussually the increase in earings due to the increase in production generally offsets this costs and owes to the reason the producer bought the tool in the first place. Thus, society does compensate both the inventor and the producer based on the quality and need for that service.

In other cases, tools are just sold for a flat cost. Leaving it to the producer to determine if the need or use of the tool is worth the cost and can lead to an increase in productivity and yield higher gains.

Specialist are compensated in many ways, in either case the inventor will always profit off the producer who wishes to use the tool whether it is an upfront compensation package or a long-term compensation package. Either way, it is society and the consuming public that winds up paying for it, at a cost that they determine based on demand.

[Velociryx]

Kid....never mind.

If you haven't gotten it yet, you just won't.

Ever. and I won't be able to chat for much longer anyway....new job starts on Monday of next week. Total unemployment time = one month, and back in the ol' exploitative saddle so I can improve myself.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not really an idealist. I just try to keep my argument consistant.

So you agree that the absolute individual autarky is the way to go.

[Illyrien]

exactly why is it that a worker is entitled to a part of the profit (if one exist), afterall he accepted and aggrement with the boss, that the boss would pay the worker a wage ever day if the worker would sell some of his time to the boss.

[The Andy-Man]

i think that kid should read adam smiths wealth of nations, even only the first few chapters. He might understand things a bit better

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
i think that kid should read adam smiths wealth of nations, even only the first few chapters. He might understand things a bit better

You rock head. I read that years ago. I understand it 10 times better than you.

[Ned]

I thought the following passage from Mein Kampf illustrates that nothing has changed in the argument with Marxists for nearly 100 years and possibly more. On page 62 in my softback version, in the chapter entitled "Study of the foundation to Marxism," Hitler has the following to say:

"At that time I was still childish enough to try to make the madness of their doctrine cleared of them; in my little circle I talked my tongue sore and my throat horse, thinking I would inevitably succeed convincing and how ruinous to Marxist madness was; but what I accomplished was often the opposite. It seemed as though their increased understanding of the destructive effects of Social Democratic theories and their results only reinforced their determination.

The more I argued with them the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there's no way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they neatly related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what what you were talking about. When you try to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed down on a jellylike slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows a telling a below that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off the same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, effected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or the virtuosity of their lying.

Gradually I began the hate them."

Just one point here, at that time, as he relates earlier in this chapter, virtually the entire leadership of the Social Democratic newspaper with whom Hitler was having these debates was Jewish. It appears that this passage is key to understanding why Hitler so hated both Jews and Marxism. But if you look back on arguments of Kidicious and others defending Marxism, you'll see the same pattern of argument as Hitler describes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rah
Hmmm what's the difference of paying x amount for a tool vs a % of labor.

Assume a tractor. Most farmers can not afford the full cost of a tractor and pay it off a little bit at a time. Which can actually be computed as a % of their labor. What's the difference?

What am I missing?

The difference is that they have to pay rent for it. Rent is exploitive. The ability to pay should not be a factor. The system allows those with the ability to pay to exploit those who do not. Get it?

[Velociryx]

I understand it 10 times better than you.

Apparently not.

[Velociryx]

The difference is that they have to pay rent for it. Rent is exploitive. The ability to pay should not be a factor. The system allows those with the ability to pay to exploit those who do not. Get it?

No contract willingly entered into is exploitative. If you freely CHOOSE to accept the terms of the contract, then you have made your choice.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid....never mind.

If you haven't gotten it yet, you just won't.

Ever. and I won't be able to chat for much longer anyway....new job starts on Monday of next week. Total unemployment time = one month, and back in the ol' exploitative saddle so I can improve myself.

-=Vel=-

Nevermind? Don't like the question?

Should people who build tools be paid more than the people who use them? Why?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I understand it 10 times better than you.

Apparently not.

No, apparently you don't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


So you agree that the absolute individual autarky is the way to go.

What is autarky?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No contract willingly entered into is exploitative. If you freely CHOOSE to accept the terms of the contract, then you have made your choice.

-=Vel=-

Choice has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of collecting benefits that you didn't earn and someone else losing the benefits of thier work.