Tax Time. Or not.

NMyTree

farfromglorified wrote:

BTW, wages certainly should be profits for you. Otherwise, why would you exchange your labor for them?

I disagree.

Wages are compensation for services rendered or work performed. A fair and equal exchange.

If you manufactor a product and sell it at a price which brings back the cost of research/development, parts, labor and production, packaging and shipping; as well as monetary gain above those costs, then that is a profit.

Certainly a corporation should and needs to make some tax free profit to survive and continue to exist.

If you want to argue that certain occupations retrieve an exuberant amount of compensation, well above reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed; then I'm with you on that.

Baseball players earning a wage of 22 million a year can probably be considered to fit into that catagory.

farfromglorified

NMyTree wrote:

I disagree.

Wages are compensation for services rendered or work performed. A fair and equal exchange.

If you manufactor a product and sell it at a price which brings back the cost of research/development, parts, labor and production, packaging and shipping; as well as monetary gain above those costs, then that is a profit.

Certainly a corporation should and needs to make some tax free profit to survive and continue to exist.

If you want to argue that certain occupations retrieve an exuberant amount of compensation, well above reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed; then I'm with you on that.

Baseball players earning a wage of 22 million a year can probably be considered to fit into that catagory.

If I manufacture labor, and sell it at a price higher than its value to me then there is a profit. You may certainly labor for zero or negative profit -- simply demand a wage that is exactly at or below the value of your own labor, to you. Why you would do that is absolutely beyond me, but it's an option. My point does not apply only to baseball players.

If labor and a wage for that labor were a zero-profit exchange, the fact of the matter is that you would be able to acquire exactly the same value from not working for that wage than you would from working for it. So why would you work for a wage????

NMyTree

Compensation is not the equivalent of profit.

There's a big difference between the two.

farfromglorified

NMyTree wrote:

Compensation is not the equivalent of profit.

There's a big difference between the two.

Hehe...as a business owner I am "compensated" for my products. Do I not profit?

There's a "big difference" only in the fact that "profit" is evil, in some people's worlds, and god knows that something millions of average Joes and Janes do could never be evil, right?

NMyTree

farfromglorified wrote:

My point does not apply only to baseball players.

I didn't say it did. I simply submitted an example.

Physicians, CEOs, Dentists, Therapists, construction workers, electricians, Rock Stars...what ever.

My point is, that an argument can made that at some point in an individuals compensation for services rendered or work performed; if the compensation exceeds certain price points- it can be percieved as "profit".

But then you have market value or the going salary for any given occupation.......supply and demand?

How would you define what is an exuberent compensation for services rendered or work performed? Where would you draw the line of fair/equal......to "profit"?

NMyTree

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...as a business owner I am "compensated" for my products. Do I not profit?

There's a "big difference" only in the fact that "profit" is evil, in some people's worlds, and god knows that something millions of average Joes and Janes do could never be evil, right?

Incorrect. You are making some gross assumptions and coming to some inaccurate conclusions regarding my opinion and stance on this issue.

Did you not read the part where I said ....

" Certainly a corporation should and needs to make some tax free profit to survive and continue to exist."

You are compensated for your cost to produce that product, when your cash return on that product pays you back the amount you spent. Anything above that cost is profit.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Work for what? Work for who? The police, military, and schools don't work for me now.

IT MAY NOT SEEM AS IF THE MILITARY WORKS FOR YOU, BUT IF WE ARE EVER INVADED, WE WILL NEED THEM! (Using all caps to differentiate my words vs. yours...I am not screaming!)

FUNDING THE MILITARY & POLICE IS SIMILAR TO HAVING INSURANCE...YOU MAY NOT NEED THEIR SERVICES NOW, BUT ONE DAY YOU MAY!



Or imagine the much more realistic alternative of parents coming together and collectively funding a local park based on their own discretion and interests.

THATS A GREAT IDEA IN THEORY, BUT IF SOME NEIGHBORHOODS LACK THE FUNDS, WHAT THEN????

"Always"? "Have to"? Or what?

...

farfromglorified

IT MAY NOT SEEM AS IF THE MILITARY WORKS FOR YOU, BUT IF WE ARE EVER INVADED, WE WILL NEED THEM! (Using all caps to differentiate my words vs. yours...I am not screaming!)

Umm...what if the military is a primary cause of that invasion?

FUNDING THE MILITARY & POLICE IS SIMILAR TO HAVING INSURANCE...YOU MAY NOT NEED THEIR SERVICES NOW, BUT ONE DAY YOU MAY!

Yep...one day I may. One day I may not. Do I have no right to evaluate that on my own, or do you have the right to make that decision for me?

THATS A GREAT IDEA IN THEORY, BUT IF SOME NEIGHBORHOODS LACK THE FUNDS, WHAT THEN????

Then no playground. Seems pretty straightforward.

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...depends on what you mean. You can start here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/

thanks

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Umm...what if the military is a primary cause of that invasion?

I AM AGAINST THE WAR, BUT THATS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.



Yep...one day I may. One day I may not. Do I have no right to evaluate that on my own, or do you have the right to make that decision for me?

SO IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PAY TAXES TOWARDS POLICE/FIRE, YOU WILL BE OK IF THEY DENY YOU THEIR SERVICES DURING A LIFE/DEATH SITUATION?

Then no playground. Seems pretty straightforward.

SEEMS AS IF YOU WANT AN EVERY-MAN-FOR-HIMSELF SOCIETY.

.

...

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

SEEMS AS IF YOU WANT AN EVERY-MAN-FOR-HIMSELF SOCIETY.

.

...

Hehe....god I love this board!

An every-man-for himself society is a society wherein every man simply takes up arms to extract the greatest value he can from his neighbors via force. That is what you're proposing, not me.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe....god I love this board!

An every-man-for himself society is a society wherein every man simply takes up arms to extract the greatest value he can from his neighbors via force. That is what you're proposing, not me.

Actually, you are proposing a society where a poor neighborhood won't have any parks, while the more affluent one's will.....thats an every-man-for-himself society.

farfromglorified

NMyTree, let me see if I can explain this to you in a manner you'll understand.

Imagine, if you will, a society comprised of three individuals. The first is a carpenter, the second is a seamstress, the third a farmer. Now, let's say the carpener builds himself a nice house, the seamstress makes herself a nice wardrobe and the farmer builds himself a nice farm. Now, let's imagine the following happens:

The carpenter continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for himself. He builds himself more and more pieces of furniture and makes his home bigger and bigger. The seamstress continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for herself. She makes more and more clothes until her wardrobe is fit for a queen. The farmer continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for himself. He grows himself more and more food until it simply rots in the field, since he cannot eat it all.

In that scenario, all three people have operated outside a system of "wage labor". They receive no benefit from their labor other than its value to them individually. Their profit eventually becomes negative, since the value of the benefits (bigger house, the additional furniture, the additional clothing, the additional food) becomes less than the costs (the labor required to make them).

However, in a society wherein the three people trade, they can arrive at a situation wherein each one profits. The carpenter receives clothing and food in exchange for his labor. The clothing and food have a value greater than the value of the labor to the carpenter, while the carpenter's labor has a greater value than the food and clothing of the farmer and seamstress, respectively. All 3 parties profit by receiving value from the others greater than the value of their labors without those others.

gue_barium

As much as it pains me with this current situation in Iraq I will oblige the Feds this year with a tax filing.



Hail! Hail! our National Parks system.

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Actually, you are proposing a society where a poor neighborhood won't have any parks, while the more affluent one's will.....thats an every-man-for-himself society.

No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.

The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.

The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.

What if the playgrounds help develop kids into good citizens...then there is less crime, so we all benefit......do you place any value in that?

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

What if the playgrounds help develop kids into good citizens...then there is less crime, so we all benefit......do you place any value in that?

Of course I place value in that. Your system, however, doesn't care what I place value in or how much I value it. It simply decides what I should value and forces me to pay for it. When the tax system allows me to actually involve my own valuations into the process, you'll have a true right to ask me these questions. Until then, they're completely irrelevant.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.

The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.

I'm not seeing the logic here. At all. I believe America was the first country in the world to set aside land for the public and in the interest of environmental protection in the form of our National Parks and Forests. I believe that says something about the poeple who live here, and even if you disagree with the process that this was/is made possible, consider what the burgeoning industrial age would have wrought on the landscape at the turn of the century without it.
I've seen that you consider yourself "forced" at "gunpoint" to pay for things that you would not ordinarily pay for. Isn't the preservation of these lands a good example of what good government can do?

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course I place value in that. Your system, however, doesn't care what I place value in or how much I value it. It simply decides what I should value and forces me to pay for it. When the tax system allows me to actually involve my own valuations into the process, you'll have a true right to ask me these questions. Until then, they're completely irrelevant.

The current system allocates funds based on the ideas of elected officials. This may be simplifying the process a bit, but in theory, you have the right to elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment.

Imagine if we all had the right to fund the services we see fit.....it may sound like true democracy, but it would turn into anarchy.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

I'm not seeing the logic here. At all. I believe America was the first country in the world to set aside land for the public and in the interest of environmental protection in the form of our National Parks and Forests. I believe that says something about the poeple who live here, and even if you disagree with the process that this was/is made possible, consider what the burgeoning industrial age would have wrought on the landscape at the turn of the century without it.
I've seen that you consider yourself "forced" at "gunpoint" to pay for things that you would not ordinarily pay for. Isn't the preservation of these lands a good example of what good government can do?

The preservation of these lands (at least some of them) is a wonderful example of what good government can do. The fact that it costs billions of dollars per year in the complete absence of any fundamental checks on its cost is also a wonderful example of what bad government can do.

Again, none of these questions matter, however, until what I value would actually come into play. What I would pay for or would not pay for holds no relevance to the proposition I'm given.