Idea for a new law: No tax can be highter then 50%

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Taxes are needed for the maintaining of society. This is fact and there is no getting around it.

Even if so however, taxes can also be used as a tool for abuse by the state when they are unfair. I personally believe that the state should not be able to profit more from somebody's cake then the person baking the cake, and thus I suggest a law that makes it illegal for the state to make any single tax higher then 50%. A full half should be the most the state should be allowed to legally take away from someone.

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a great idea, a safeguard in place in case the government goes nuts. You sir have my support.

I don't see why. Remember that higher tax brackets apply only to the money above a certain threshhold. So no matter how much money you make, making more is always better than making less, even if you gain diminishing returns. Why 50% of all things? Why not 40% or 75%? Seems rather arbitrary.

Thoughts ?

every person, legal entity that's treated as a person and business gets a government prescribed "basic bank account" with legally limited functionality but also no charges and clearing system meaning digital transfers between these accounts are free and taken to be instantaneous.

these accounts form the backbone of all forms of inter business and business to employee payment.

everyone gets taxed for "federal", "state" and "local" services (at varying rates) and they are deducted from deposits to these accounts (gross income) on a percentage basis.

there (almost) are no other forms of tax (except probably a "land tax").

the entire system is a basically a big sealed computer system on that costs next to nothing to run and it results in next to zero tax avoidance or evasion by anyone.

banks actually have to offer advantageous terms (like real interest) on their accounts to attract customers rather than just the facility to store and use your own money in a digital age.

basically.

you want to pay less personal taxation ? make it impossible not to pay what is already due.
and quit mincing words. there is only paying tax and trying not to pay tax.

it's entirely do-able with a little thought and application.

don't accept the idea that its ok for rich people to avoid paying it "because they don't want to" or because they can find some shitty little country (with no military >:) ) to bank in. don't accept the taxation related premise of the "shareholder value capitalism" that was invented in 1973 as if it was the word of god written on a mountain somewhere ie that its somehow moral/ethical for business to avoid as much taxation as possible so their shareholders get handed money that by rights should have been legitimately paid to the state. don't accept shit like this :

In 2011 ActionAid reported that 25% of the FTSE 100 companies avoided taxation by locating their subsidiaries in tax havens. This increased to 98% when using the stricter US congress definition of tax haven and bank secrecy jurisdictions.

Furthermore, a Government Accountability Office study found that, from 1998 to 2005, 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied. A review in 2011 by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy of companies in the Fortune 500 profitable every year from 2008 through 2010 stated these companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5% and that 30 of these companies actually had a negative income tax due

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance

I don't think the average person's income tax is more than 50 %. I think its more like 25 % in most cases. Thus your earnings from Three months of the year is taken from you in income tax.

Skeleon:
I don't see why. Remember that higher tax brackets apply only to the money above a certain threshhold. So no matter how much money you make, making more is always better than making less, even if you gain diminishing returns. Why 50% of all things? Why not 40% or 75%? Seems rather arbitrary.

50% makes perfect sense.

That way in a highest possible tax situation, the state gets a full half of the money and the tax payer the other half. Makes more sense then putting it at 40 or 75 percent.

Sleekit:
Snip

Not everybody lives in the US. I for one live in Iceland.

Friendly Lich:
I don't think the average person's income tax is more than 50 %. I think its more like 25 % in most cases. Thus your earnings from Three months of the year is taken from you in income tax.

I never said anything about the avarege tax being paid by somebody. I said that no single tax should be allowed to be higher then 50%.

Hardcore_gamer:

Sleekit:
Snip

Not everybody lives in the US. I for one live in Iceland.

other than the mention of federal and state taxes there's not much ties what i said to the US.

change it "everyone gets taxed for "national", "regional" and "county" services (at varying rates)" if you like :)

This seems completely random. There is no real difference between 50% and 51%. 50% is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand because half and half is a nice even split. Why having a nice even split should matter in any way I don't know, especially compared with the fact that sometimes you need to raise taxes and sometimes those taxes will go above 50% on the rich. Compared to some of the rates the USA has had in the past, including 93% during WWII, 50% is nothing.

But really, no. The highest taxes are applied to the rich, which fits in line with

a) Marginal utility

b) The exploitative nature of the capitalist classes.

Really the top tax rate should be a minimum of 100% for the very rich.

Overhead:
This seems completely random. There is no real difference between 50% and 51%. 50% is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand because half and half is a nice even split. Why having a nice even split should matter in any way I don't know, especially compared with the fact that sometimes you need to raise taxes and sometimes those taxes will go above 50% on the rich. Compared to some of the rates the USA has had in the past, including 93% during WWII, 50% is nothing.

But really, no. The highest taxes are applied to the rich, which fits in line with

a) Marginal utility

b) The exploitative nature of the capitalist classes.

Really the top tax rate should be a minimum of 100% for the very rich.

100%? So every penny that they would make would be taken away? I don't understand what you are saying.

Friendly Lich:

Overhead:
This seems completely random. There is no real difference between 50% and 51%. 50% is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand because half and half is a nice even split. Why having a nice even split should matter in any way I don't know, especially compared with the fact that sometimes you need to raise taxes and sometimes those taxes will go above 50% on the rich. Compared to some of the rates the USA has had in the past, including 93% during WWII, 50% is nothing.

But really, no. The highest taxes are applied to the rich, which fits in line with

a) Marginal utility

b) The exploitative nature of the capitalist classes.

Really the top tax rate should be a minimum of 100% for the very rich.

100%? So every penny that they would make would be taken away? I don't understand what you are saying.

I guess that what he means is that when you reach a certain income you can't go higher

Hardcore_gamer:

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

Robbing? really? Do you know many robbers who take your money and than use it to fund in law enforcement, healthcare, a standing military, education, infrastructure, etc. ? The state will only become a robber when the money they tax goes in the pocket of the politicians.

generals3:

Hardcore_gamer:

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

Robbing? really? Do you know many robbers who take your money and than use it to fund in law enforcement, healthcare, a standing military, education, infrastructure, etc. ? The state will only become a robber when the money they tax goes in the pocket of the politicians.

I never said that taxes were robbery, I said that taxes OVER 50% were. Big difference.

Hardcore_gamer:

generals3:

Hardcore_gamer:

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

Robbing? really? Do you know many robbers who take your money and than use it to fund in law enforcement, healthcare, a standing military, education, infrastructure, etc. ? The state will only become a robber when the money they tax goes in the pocket of the politicians.

I never said that taxes were robbery, I said that taxes OVER 50% were. Big difference.

Not really.

OT: I wouldn't care if the tax on interests and profits were 90% and that there was a 75% income tax on certain brackets.

@Hardcore_gamer

50% makes perfect sense.

That way in a highest possible tax situation, the state gets a full half of the money and the tax payer the other half. Makes more sense then putting it at 40 or 75 percent.

Well, no, that's not what it means. Only above a certain percentage does the state get 50%. So it's far from the state receiving "a full half of the money". That's exactly why I brought up the point about tax brackets and the higher rates only applying above a certain threshold.

And even if you were right and the 50% were applied to all the income, why 50%? Why half? "Makes more sense" isn't really an answer. Why does it make more sense? In what way? They're all rather arbitrary numbers. Used to be "the tenth" made a lot of sense.

Also, why a law that makes it illegal to go higher? Why do you want to tie the representatives' hands? What if the economic situation changes? You'd first have to repeal the law to adapt then rather than merely changing the tax rate again.

I had no idea tax brackets were such a difficult concept to understand. Do schools teach finance or civics these days? or even just basic mathematics?

Xan Krieger:
Sounds like a great idea, a safeguard in place in case the government goes nuts. You sir have my support.

I think if the government were to "go nuts," the last thing that's going to keep them in check is a little regulation they themselves voted in. They'll find some way around it before they're thwarted by something like that.

In other news, eh. I don't really know enough about taxes to say whether or not this is reasonable. Though as others have said, it seems 50% is a rather arbitrary number with no significance or any amount of thought behind it. If I were to pick a "magic number" to have all taxes stop at, I would want it to be a very precise and well-researched one.

I believe business shouldn't profit more from the shoe than the person making the shoe, but apparently that's crazy socialist talk.

ClockworkPenguin:
I believe business shouldn't profit more from the shoe than the person making the shoe, but apparently that's crazy socialist talk.

How can somebody run a successful shoe business if the business can't profit more from an individual shoe then the person making the shoe?

Yeah, let's make pointless laws that aren't based on anything but an underbelly feeling, that's a really good idea that could never go wrong.

Hardcore_gamer:
How can somebody run a successful shoe business if the business can't profit more from an individual shoe then the person making the shoe?

The point of retail sales is to increase value by bringing together an assortment of goods so the consumer doesn't need to visit ten factories to see what's for sale, and provide them in a good environment with good service.

Retail doesn't increase value by fucking over suppliers or staff. Sure they can make additional money that way, but it's a radically wrong path to take. Cuz, you know, pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Hardcore_gamer:

ClockworkPenguin:
I believe business shouldn't profit more from the shoe than the person making the shoe, but apparently that's crazy socialist talk.

How can somebody run a successful shoe business if the business can't profit more from an individual shoe then the person making the shoe?

Uh, because profit is profit regardless of how much other people are making?

Car dealers in America earn almost nothing in new car sales, nearly all of the profit goes back to the manufacturer. Yet car dealers don't have too much trouble staying in business, at least in America. ( I have no idea how the model works in other countries.)

It's a cute little libertarian bumpersticker, though the government will simply look elsewhere for revenue even if this is passed. In North Korea for instance there aren't any taxes.

Hardcore_gamer:

ClockworkPenguin:
I believe business shouldn't profit more from the shoe than the person making the shoe, but apparently that's crazy socialist talk.

How can somebody run a successful shoe business if the business can't profit more from an individual shoe then the person making the shoe?

I dunno, say a cost per shoe x without cost of labour, sell the shoe at y and pay the shoemaker (y-x)/2 .

Now I accept that there are problems with this over simplification. There will be other employees not directly involved in the manufacturing process, who need wages and whose jobs are just as important for example, but in general, how is it okay for a businessman to make more money off someone else's labour than they do, but not okay for a government to make more money from the businessman's work than he does?

Friendly Lich:

Overhead:
This seems completely random. There is no real difference between 50% and 51%. 50% is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand because half and half is a nice even split. Why having a nice even split should matter in any way I don't know, especially compared with the fact that sometimes you need to raise taxes and sometimes those taxes will go above 50% on the rich. Compared to some of the rates the USA has had in the past, including 93% during WWII, 50% is nothing.

But really, no. The highest taxes are applied to the rich, which fits in line with

a) Marginal utility

b) The exploitative nature of the capitalist classes.

Really the top tax rate should be a minimum of 100% for the very rich.

100%? So every penny that they would make would be taken away? I don't understand what you are saying.

Pretty much that, although you have to note that I said top tax rate.

People pay differrent parts of their income at different tax rates. So even someone with a staggering multi-million dollar income will pay next to nothing in tax on the first few thousand dollars they earn, then a little bit more on the next several thousand dollars, then the percentage will increase again for the next dozen or so thousand dollars, etc, etc. This carries on until they reach the top tax rate, after which all of their income will be taxed at this highest rate.

In the USA at the moment, this is 39.6%. So once you reach a few hundred thousand, everything above that is taxed at that rate. I suggest it should be 100% so that they literally earn no money over a certain amount.

Overhead:
In the USA at the moment, this is 39.6%. So once you reach a few hundred thousand, everything above that is taxed at that rate. I suggest it should be 100% so that they literally earn no money over a certain amount.

What an excellent way to encourage tax evasion, encourage emigration of those who contribute most and punish people for being succesfull.

Both that jealousy tax and libertarian flat tax are ridiculous extremes that don't function in reality.

Blablahb:
What an excellent way to encourage tax evasion

Which can be investigated and dealt with by the normal methods.

encourage emigration of those who contribute most

Why would the essential earners who make far below what the top tax rate be leave a country if it got too high? Also capital flight would be illegal as well, so they'd be perfectly able to leave, but taking their money with them would be a no no.

and punish people for being succesfull.

The tax was on levels of income, not success.

Overhead:

Blablahb:
What an excellent way to encourage tax evasion

Which can be investigated and dealt with by the normal methods.

encourage emigration of those who contribute most

Why would the essential earners who make far below what the top tax rate be leave a country if it got too high? Also capital flight would be illegal as well, so they'd be perfectly able to leave, but taking their money with them would be a no no.

and punish people for being succesfull.

The tax was on levels of income, not success.

1) If it were easy nobody would do it. Having more tax fraud is not something you'd want and with exorbitant taxes evading taxes becomes much much more likeable. I mean, if you can save millions by evading taxes with an odd chance of being caught it will probably be very tempting to do so.

2) Typical extreme left wing rethoric. You can twist it all you want but there are many rich people who contribute much more than laborers or low skilled employees ever could. Think of all the Entrepreneurs who started new companies, brought new products/services on the market, created jobs, etc. who earn lots of money because they did it right. By being so harsh with taxes you'll take away a big incentive for people to take a lot of risks to start up a new business.

3) Well even if you do that you'll still have one problem: no capital will ever come in the country again. Eventually your wealth will stagnate. You'll be keeping what's in in but nothing that isn't in would even consider coming in.

generals3:
1) If it were easy nobody would do it. Having more tax fraud is not something you'd want and with exorbitant taxes evading taxes becomes much much more likeable. I mean, if you can save millions by evading taxes with an odd chance of being caught it will probably be very tempting to do so.

The money lost through ta fraud is nothing compared to the money lost through tax avoidance. I'll take a rise, hell, even a possible massive leap, in tax evasion if it gets rid of tax avoidance

2) Typical extreme left wing rethoric. You can twist it all you want but there are many rich people who contribute much more than laborers or low skilled employees ever could.

None that I can think of.

Think of all the Entrepreneurs who started new companies, brought new products/services on the market, created jobs, etc. who earn lots of money because they did it right.

Investing capital to start a business is the only mainstream framework for creating a company. It's nothing to be thankful for, but rather a by-product of the market orientated economy.

By being so harsh with taxes you'll take away a big incentive for people to take a lot of risks to start up a new business.

I'm Communist. Pretty much by definition I don't want people to use their capital to start up businesses.

3) Well even if you do that you'll still have one problem: no capital will ever come in the country again. Eventually your wealth will stagnate. You'll be keeping what's in in but nothing that isn't in would even consider coming in.

Not really. You can even look at ass backward Statist regimes like Cuba and see that they've developed and grown despite a massive embargo, economic warfare directed at them and their antagonism towards Capitalism.

Overhead:
Which can be investigated and dealt with by the normal methods.

After which the Swiss or Caymanese (or whatever you should refer the inhabitants of those islands with) give you the finger, saying we'll take that money from you, and thank you very much.

It's not something you'll be able to stop if half the country is subject to a jealousy tax of 100% of their additional income. Right now it's only a few millionaires for whom tax evasion of the legal kind is worth it. If one were to make the mistake of introducing your jealousy tax, suddenly the number of people for whom tax evasion is worth it would skyrocket, and even trying to stop the illegal type of tax evasion would be nigh impossible due to the sheer numbers of perpetrators.

You know they tried what you want once, in post-soviet Russia, nominal tax rates on everyone were above 100% for a while due to administrative chaos (that's for what they convicted Chodorkovsky), and guess what? People didn't pay more than 100% tax, they didn't even pay 100% tax. Most of the time, nobody paid anything at all if they could afford it, because the climate of not being able to own anything they earned, had lead to a culture of viewing the state and its taxes as a sort of vampiric being. It's not an attitude you want to encourage by imposing unfair taxes.

Overhead:
Why would the essential earners who make far below what the top tax rate be leave a country if it got too high?

Because it's against their best interest to stay. And short of that there's a lot of other things you can do. You can for instance purchase real estate in the Netherlands on a mortgage enabled by British income, pay the returns from your British income, then rent it out, have the rent paid to a shell company, owned by a Dutch holding company, owned by you. You deduct it all from your taxes, deduct the mortgage from your taxes due in the Netherlands, and finding ways to let the money of the holding you own find its way anywhere is childsplay.

There's no way to check if a building is indeed occupied. That's undoable, so you could even pour your income into the losses incurred by that real estate being supposedly empty, so the exploitation runs a constant loss (covered from your British income) without it being possible to prove it. In the meantime the holding is making a killing each month because they take the rent of whatever you're housing, be it residential but more likely commercial rent, while having no operating costs.

And you can easily expand that into the real tax fraud if you pay a Dutch company to install improvements (deducted as investments from your British taxable income), paid by your British income, then you sell those things again, and have the proceeds transferred to the shell company, or just book them to your account. Since the alternative is having it all taken away under the British jealousy tax you're proposing, the loss between purchase and second hand sale is well worth it.

And the only things I know about bookkeeping is from very limited experience helping out my father. Imagine what a paid professional could come up with in terms of reducing your income to dodge your jealousy tax... Especially if there's thousands of pounds riding on it.

Overhead:
Also capital flight would be illegal as well, so they'd be perfectly able to leave, but taking their money with them would be a no no.

You can't make that illegal. It's against international law, EU treaties, and probably half a dozen UK legal principles as well. Both people and capital can cross borders. It's not something you can prohibit. Well, unless your name is Kim Yong Il of course, and even he couldn't pull it off.

Overhead:

Think of all the Entrepreneurs who started new companies, brought new products/services on the market, created jobs, etc. who earn lots of money because they did it right.

Investing capital to start a business is the only mainstream framework for creating a company. It's nothing to be thankful for, but rather a by-product of the market orientated economy.

You have a false definition of "entrepreneur". There is a big difference between an investor and entrepreneur. One can be both of course but one can be an investor without being an entrepreneur. There are people who put some of their savings and almost all their time into their start ups. They don't only invest but often also act as CEO, CFO, CMO and even more if needed. These are people who make 8hour per day 5/7d laborers look like lazy ingrates. And often said entrepreneurs have to live with marginal salaries, even below the minimum wage, in the early stages. But because they know that if they do their best they will be able to see their baby grow and salaries multiply they persevere. Why would you take away incentives for such great contributors?

generals3:

2) Typical extreme left wing rethoric. You can twist it all you want but there are many rich people who contribute much more than laborers or low skilled employees ever could. Think of all the Entrepreneurs who started new companies, brought new products/services on the market, created jobs, etc. who earn lots of money because they did it right. By being so harsh with taxes you'll take away a big incentive for people to take a lot of risks to start up a new business.

Sorry, but the American Dream is a thing of the past. New businesses aren't going to roll in insane amounts of profits because the market has been cornered and is controlled by the already established players, that have a lot more resources to sink into stuff like advertising and PR. New businesses will manage to break even at best, with rare exceptions; and likely not be able to afford to patent any new invention to prevent the sharks from stealing it.

Now, I do not agree with a 100% tax bracket, but, just saying. The wealth gap we are looking at is just unhealthy. It's threatening to crash the global economy in a few decades, most of the wealth in the hands of the super rich people is stagnating, it's not contributing anything to the economy. That is not a good thing. And it's in the long term interest of even the rich folks to not fuck over the less fortunate folks too much, because pieces of paper aren't going to stop a hungry, desperate mob with nothing to lose; and "let them eat cake" has been tried and it has failed before.

My solution? I don't really have one, but basically it'd involve pointing out why letting the wealth be hoarded in an increasingly smaller and more concentrated spot is a very bad thing™. If it goes too far, your liberties are irrelevant to my survival. That's just the way our brains are wired. And we'd do well to avoid scenarios in which that will become a risk.

Vegosiux:
Sorry, but the American Dream is a thing of the past. New businesses aren't going to roll in insane amounts of profits because the market has been cornered and is controlled by the already established players, that have a lot more resources to sink into stuff like advertising and PR. New businesses will manage to break even at best, with rare exceptions; and likely not be able to afford to patent any new invention to prevent the sharks from stealing it.

You're mostly right and definately right about the american dream, but at the same time you can still carve out a new niche or make inventions or innovations. For instance there never used to be a market for tablets since they didn't exist, neither was there one for smartphones.

To name just one example, Research In Motion from Blackberry wasn't a big player in computers in, say, the 1970-2000 era. They started on mobile phones and pagers. Nowadays they're competing with companies than used to make only computers, like for instance Apple. The market changed and innovations were made that changed the market, and new players rose as a result. The technological advances erased many differences between computers, laptops and phones that there used to be.

The same can be said about laptops. Some players rose for those that weren't around before, in the days where a 'laptop' was still the size of a large suitcase and too heavy to effectively carry around.

That's why most bureaucrats can't stop going on and on about 'innovation' and how it will save the economy.

Blablahb:
After which the Swiss or Caymanese (or whatever you should refer the inhabitants of those islands with) give you the finger, saying we'll take that money from you, and thank you very much.

That's tax avoidance, not tax evasion. Talk about one or the other, don't chop and change.

It's not something you'll be able to stop if half the country is subject to a jealousy tax of 100% of their additional income. Right now it's only a few millionaires for whom tax evasion of the legal kind is worth it. If one were to make the mistake of introducing your jealousy tax, suddenly the number of people for whom tax evasion is worth it would skyrocket, and even trying to stop the illegal type of tax evasion would be nigh impossible due to the sheer numbers of perpetrators.

Yes, just like what happened when the USA raised it's taxes to 93%. Of wait, that didn't happen and you're making simplistic assumptions about human decision making based on a specific reductionist ideology with no basis on fact.

Also tax evasion isn't worth it because they already skip loads of tax with tax avoidance.

You know they tried what you want once, in post-soviet Russia, nominal tax rates on everyone were above 100% for a while due to administrative chaos (that's for what they convicted Chodorkovsky), and guess what? People didn't pay more than 100% tax, they didn't even pay 100% tax. Most of the time, nobody paid anything at all if they could afford it, because the climate of not being able to own anything they earned, had lead to a culture of viewing the state and its taxes as a sort of vampiric being. It's not an attitude you want to encourage by imposing unfair taxes.

In this example it would be applied to the top tax rate, which is a small percentage of people and a completely different scenario.

Overhead:
Why would the essential earners who make far below what the top tax rate be leave a country if it got too high?

Because it's against their best interest to stay. And short of that there's a lot of other things you can do. You can for instance purchase real estate in the Netherlands on a mortgage enabled by British income, pay the returns from your British income, then rent it out, have the rent paid to a shell company, owned by a Dutch holding company, owned by you. You deduct it all from your taxes, deduct the mortgage from your taxes due in the Netherlands, and finding ways to let the money of the holding you own find its way anywhere is childsplay.

There's no way to check if a building is indeed occupied. That's undoable, so you could even pour your income into the losses incurred by that real estate being supposedly empty, so the exploitation runs a constant loss (covered from your British income) without it being possible to prove it. In the meantime the holding is making a killing each month because they take the rent of whatever you're housing, be it residential but more likely commercial rent, while having no operating costs.

Rentiers would already be in the Gulags. Next objection?

And you can easily expand that into the real tax fraud if you pay a Dutch company to install improvements (deducted as investments from your British taxable income), paid by your British income, then you sell those things again, and have the proceeds transferred to the shell company, or just book them to your account. Since the alternative is having it all taken away under the British jealousy tax you're proposing, the loss between purchase and second hand sale is well worth it.

You're right, it will now be a 200% top tax with a well funded prosecution service to catch anyone who still seems rich after a few months.

You can't make that illegal. It's against international law, EU treaties, and probably half a dozen UK legal principles as well. Both people and capital can cross borders. It's not something you can prohibit. Well, unless your name is Kim Yong Il of course, and even he couldn't pull it off.

The British legal principles would a priori be dealt with because the assumption is that this is all going ahead at the behest of British legislation.

In terms of international law and EU treaties, I can't think of anything off hand that would cover it but it's such a niche subject it's hard to say. For instance although the EEA agreements are set up to encourage the free flow of Capital across country's borders, that's in terms of things like the integration and standardisation of national financial services between nations rather. I have never seen anything which covers nations imposing laws on capital flight because I don't think it was really considered a possibility.

generals3:
You have a false definition of "entrepreneur". There is a big difference between an investor and entrepreneur. One can be both of course but one can be an investor without being an entrepreneur.

You cannot however be an entrepreneur without being an investor.

There are people who put some of their savings and almost all their time into their start ups. They don't only invest but often also act as CEO, CFO, CMO and even more if needed. These are people who make 8hour per day 5/7d laborers look like lazy ingrates.

The big emotional appeal/strawman (I notice your example doesn't have much room for lazy owners who just inhereted some money and decided to start a business for example) you're making involves petit-bourgouis business owners who're still acting as labourers. It's their role as a labourer which is creating everything of value; with the investment simply being what is required to be able to control the means of production and in the future extract profit from and exploit workers.

Why would you take away incentives for such great contributors?

They're no greater contributors than anyone else and I wouldn't take away the incentives. Do work, earn money, get more money the more your earn would still be there. The most disproportionate levels of profit would simply be banned.

of course this is all based on the off hand comment I made rather than the true method I'd use, which is to smash the state and destroy capitalism.

Hardcore_gamer:

ClockworkPenguin:
I believe business shouldn't profit more from the shoe than the person making the shoe, but apparently that's crazy socialist talk.

How can somebody run a successful shoe business if the business can't profit more from an individual shoe then the person making the shoe?

But it's only fair. 50/50. Or is 50/50 not so fair now?

And there is no real importance to 50/50 btw. It does not have some special property that makes it fair.

Overhead:

I'm Communist.

Well that explains a lot...

(presses ignore button)

EDIT: Note I did not actually press the ignore button. I don't ever actually that. But was tempted to.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here