Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[Vast LWC]

Look, I agree that investors aren't taking a free ride when they invest in a company. They are risking their wealth.

However, you all seem to think that workers are of no value to an enterprise, and are just getting paid to do nothing. Well, that's just not the case.

Workers are given jobs, and PAID in return for effort.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have alway's respected the way Ayn Rand said it Through Howard Roarke.

Gary Cooper in "The Fountainhead."

YouTube - The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)

Thank you for this, Intense. I hope some of our young Leftists will listen to the whole thing because while it doesn't fully answer 'whol benefits most', it is a brilliant summation of the purpose behind the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, and the current emphasis of the Tea Parties.

 

[Foxfyre]

who has more at risk....the employee or the employer.....

anyone here self employed?.....anyone know what happens if your company goes under....

They both share the same risk.

If the company goes under, the employees are out of a job, and they have devoted all that work to a failed enterprise and must start over again at another location.

Who benefits more? Let's answer that before we veer off into other things.

 

[Vast LWC]

Im constantly amazed by the # of people duped by the populist BS "blame the rich" for everything mantra. Its so fcukking simpleton. No person ever got a job from a poor guy. Every k00k on this board, to a person, thinks that the worlds problems can be solved simply by taxing the shit out of the rich.

Liberalism is a hoax...........

Yes, because anyone said what you just accused us of. Who the fuck "blamed the rich" for anything?

Nice work with the pithy little talking points though, are you going to post a funny picture next?

 

[Foxfyre]

who has more at risk....the employee or the employer.....

anyone here self employed?.....anyone know what happens if your company goes under....

I am self employed and I am prepared to discuss who is more at risk.

First I want the question answered: who benefits more?

 

[Vast LWC]

who has more at risk....the employee or the employer.....

anyone here self employed?.....anyone know what happens if your company goes under....

They both share the same risk.

If the company goes under, the employees are out of a job, and they have devoted all that work to a failed enterprise and must start over again at another location.

Who benefits more? Let's answer that before we veer off into other things.

I just answered that 2 posts ago.

 

[Jarhead]

Just to clarify:

The independantly wealthy guy you are referring to. You mean the one who is responsible for any legal actions after the job is completed? Responsible for getting paid by the government well after he pays the 100 employees?

You referring to that guy? The one who sacrificed his savings on an idea; an idea that employed those 100 men who sacrificed nothing by accepting the employment?

Yeah. I agree. I would like to hear someone on the left answer that question.

Again, what about the workers in that equation, and their labor to gain money for the independently wealthy guy?

Are they just getting the "gift" of a job? Are they just happy to do all that work so the guy at the top can profit?

Why is it that you both only seem to value the efforts of the president of the company and not the efforts of anyone else to make that company profit?

Is it that you think the only worthy, talented people in a company are the CEO and the board?

Exactly where did I say anything that would give you that assumption? I respect you LW, but I resent that you see me in that light.

Every employee in a company is valuable.

The workers get paid a salary for the work done. I have no complaints about that whatsoever.

But we can not lose sight of the decisions people make.

Many prefer being an employee as they cherish their free time for family, fun, etc. They like to know that they can call in sick when they are sick and the company wont fail becuase of it. They like to be able to take personal days when they wish. Vacations when they desire.

Others opt to be owners as they prefer control of their destiny and the financial rewards. They (we) are always thinking about business, rarely take a sick day when we are sick, and worry about our employees everyday.

Neither is right or wrong. They are personal choices.

I prefer you not assume my thought process. You painted me out to be the kind of person I personally despise. All are important in a company, but some positions are just not worthy of higher salaries. They top out. I will elaborate if you prefer, but I am sure you know what I mean.

 

[Intense]

Just to clarify:

The independantly wealthy guy you are referring to. You mean the one who is responsible for any legal actions after the job is completed? Responsible for getting paid by the government well after he pays the 100 employees?

You referring to that guy? The one who sacrificed his savings on an idea; an idea that employed those 100 men who sacrificed nothing by accepting the employment?

Yeah. I agree. I would like to hear someone on the left answer that question.

Again, what about the workers in that equation, and their labor to gain money for the independently wealthy guy?

Are they just getting the "gift" of a job? Are they just happy to do all that work so the guy at the top can profit?

Why is it that you both only seem to value the efforts of the president of the company and not the efforts of anyone else to make that company profit?

Is it that you think the only worthy, talented people in a company are the CEO and the board?

You are free to take the job or not. You are free to compete at some level. Sometimes it is about accomplishment more than profit.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not a flawed question. I did not even remotely suggest that the person hiring the workers does not benefit.

But who benefits more? Remember, the guy doing the hiring already has all the money he needs or can probably use in his lifetime.

The guy at the top benefits more, in general.

The people he hires generally do all the work, while the investor reaps the majority of the benefits.

Unless the company is a failure, in which case the workers benefit more. See? It's a flawed question.

But how do you define benefits.

The profits taken by the contractor add to his wealth, but they do not add to his quality of life in any way.

The salaries and benefits paid to those 100 employees, however, make a huge difference in their quality of life.

And, speaking as a business person who has had responsibility for many subordinates and who has hired and paid them, it is very rare that the owner of the business reaps the majority of benefits or sometimes any at all while those he pays are benefitted nicely.

And if you think an employee assumes the same risk as the employer, you really REALLY need to get a refund on any economics classes that you've had.

 

[Intense]

Look, I agree that investors aren't taking a free ride when they invest in a company. They are risking their wealth.

However, you all seem to think that workers are of no value to an enterprise, and are just getting paid to do nothing. Well, that's just not the case.

Workers are given jobs, and PAID in return for effort.

It is wrong to imply that workers are of no value. It is disingenuous.

Value for Value.

 

[Vast LWC]

Exactly where did I say anything that would give you that assumption? I respect you LW, but I resent that you see me in that light.

Every employee in a company is valuable.

The workers get paid a salary for the work done. I have no complaints about that whatsoever.

But we can not lose sight of the decisions people make.

Many prefer being an employee as they cherish their free time for family, fun, etc. They like to know that they can call in sick when they are sick and the company wont fail becuase of it. They like to be able to take personal days when they wish. Vacations when they desire.

Others opt to be owners as they prefer control of their destiny and the financial rewards. They (we) are always thinking about business, rarely take a sick day when we are sick, and worry about our employees everyday.

Neither is right or wrong. They are personal choices.

I prefer you not assume my thought process. You painted me out to be the kind of person I personally despise. All are important in a company, but some positions are just not worthy of higher salaries. They top out. I will elaborate if you prefer, but I am sure you know what I mean.

Actually I apologize. I said that because you were agreeing with the other post, in the middle of a conversation about this subject.

FoxFyre, whom I love arguing with by the way, but sometimes get a little accusatory towards, is a pure Ayn Randian. LOL.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are free to take the job or not. You are free to compete at some level. Sometimes it is about accomplishment more than profit.

True, true, fair point, but you are also free to choose whether to invest your hard earned money or not.

 

[Vast LWC]

But how do you define benefits.

The profits taken by the contractor add to his wealth, but they do not add to his quality of life in any way.

The salaries and benefits paid to those 100 employees, however, make a huge difference in their quality of life.

And, speaking as a business person who has had responsibility for many subordinates and who has hired and paid them, it is very rare that the owner of the business reaps the majority of benefits or sometimes any at all while those he pays are benefitted nicely.

And if you think an employee assumes the same risk as the employer, you really REALLY need to get a refund on any economics classes that you've had.

But you're assuming that all investors in companies are sinking all of their wealth into said business venture.

In most larger companies, that is not the case at all. In corporations, it is definitely not the case, as risk is generally shared by a number of investors.

In your particular case perhaps you had the majority of the risk and the employees benefitted more than you did, but in Exxon, the investors definitely benefit more, with less risk, than the employees.

 

[Intense]

Exactly where did I say anything that would give you that assumption? I respect you LW, but I resent that you see me in that light.

Every employee in a company is valuable.

The workers get paid a salary for the work done. I have no complaints about that whatsoever.

But we can not lose sight of the decisions people make.

Many prefer being an employee as they cherish their free time for family, fun, etc. They like to know that they can call in sick when they are sick and the company wont fail becuase of it. They like to be able to take personal days when they wish. Vacations when they desire.

Others opt to be owners as they prefer control of their destiny and the financial rewards. They (we) are always thinking about business, rarely take a sick day when we are sick, and worry about our employees everyday.

Neither is right or wrong. They are personal choices.

I prefer you not assume my thought process. You painted me out to be the kind of person I personally despise. All are important in a company, but some positions are just not worthy of higher salaries. They top out. I will elaborate if you prefer, but I am sure you know what I mean.

Actually I apologize. I said that because you were agreeing with the other post, in the middle of a conversation about this subject.

FoxFyre, whom I love arguing with by the way, but sometimes get a little accusatory towards, is a pure Ayn Randian. LOL.

For a self proclaimed atheist, Ayn Rand did write Unalienable Right, Conscience, Reason, Value. I think that what she was really against was swallowing Anyone Else's version of what God is or isn't. I think in her own way, she knew him. Ayn's upbringing in the Soviet Union Post Communist Revolution, was allot different than what most of us had to survive. The Effect's show in all of her writings. Try out "We The Living", or "Anthem", before you judge her.

 

[Intense]

You are free to take the job or not. You are free to compete at some level. Sometimes it is about accomplishment more than profit.

True, true, fair point, but you are also free to choose whether to invest your hard earned money or not.

Exactly! It is Your or My risk on both ends. When we make society pay, we open Pandora's box for irresponsible and incompetent spending at both private and government levels.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend private or government money. I'm saying that we should not abandon wisdom and reason in doing so. Just because someone or group has a claim, that does not make it just. Prudence when spending other people's money?

 

[Vast LWC]

For a self proclaimed atheist, Ayn Rand did write Unalienable Right, Conscience, Reason, Value. I think that what she was really against was swallowing Anyone Else's version of what God is or isn't. I think in her own way, she knew him. Ayn's upbringing in the Soviet Union Post Communist Revolution, was allot different than what most of us had to survive. The Effect's show in all of her writings. Try out "We The Living", or "Anthem", before you judge her.

You know what? You actually have a good point.

I get most of my interpretation of what Ann Rand believes second-hand. I have honestly only read bits and pieces of her actual work.

Do you have a specific book that would sum her up best that I might pick up and read?

I probably won't agree with most of it, but I prefer to be educated before passing judgement.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are free to take the job or not. You are free to compete at some level. Sometimes it is about accomplishment more than profit.

True, true, fair point, but you are also free to choose whether to invest your hard earned money or not.

The Employer invests his time to bid on the contract. That is often a very lengthy and time consuming process and if he doesn't get the contract, he does it for free.

The Employer provides the credentials, reputation, track record, business license, general liability insurance, workers compensation insurance, E & O (if required), and various other insurance and bonds as necessary to complete the process.

The Employer usually has to pay for any environmental impact studies done, prove that he complies with zoning laws, and get necessary permits, get approvals from necessary utilities and other entities before work can begin.

The Employer provides the infrastructure, equipment, supplies, and, as often as not, any tools necessary to complete the job.

The Employer will be named in any lawsuit, regardless of whether he was at fault in any way, arising out of the contract and will have to pay any legal costs associated by that.

The Employer is responsible to provide any necessary support staff and supervisory personnel and sometimes will provide transportation.

The Employer will have to meet the payroll and pay all other impending costs until sufficient work has been completed so that he receives some payment.
___________________________________________________________

The Employee has to show up for work, put in the required effort, collect his pay check and he goes home. If the job folds or the employer loses the contract, he might lose a pay check, but for the most part his investment and risk is minimal compared to that the employer assumes.

____________________________________________________________

Okay your turn. Rebut that if you can.

And then maybe you might shift your thinking about who benefits more. The employer? Or the 100 guys who are able to pay their mortgage, buy groceries, and keep their kids in school.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Employer invests his time to bid on the contract. That is often a very lengthy and time consuming process and if he doesn't get the contract, he does it for free.

The Employer provides the credentials, reputation, track record, business license, general liability insurance, workers compensation insurance, E & O (if required), and various other insurance and bonds as necessary to complete the process.

The Employer usually has to pay for any environmental impact studies done, prove that he complies with zoning laws, and get necessary permits, get approvals from necessary utilities and other entities before work can begin.

The Employer provides the infrastructure, equipment, supplies, and, as often as not, any tools necessary to complete the job.

The Employer will be named in any lawsuit, regardless of whether he was at fault in any way, arising out of the contract and will have to pay any legal costs associated by that.

The Employer is responsible to provide any necessary support staff and supervisory personnel and sometimes will provide transportation.

The Employer will have to meet the payroll and pay all other impending costs until sufficient work has been completed so that he receives some payment.
___________________________________________________________

The Employee has to show up for work, put in the required effort, collect his pay check and he goes home. If the job folds or the employer loses the contract, he might lose a pay check, but for the most part his investment and risk is minimal compared to that the employer assumes.

____________________________________________________________

Okay your turn. Rebut that if you can.

And then maybe you might shift your thinking about who benefits more. The employer? Or the 100 guys who are able to pay their mortgage, buy groceries, and keep their kids in school.

Actually it's quite easy to rebut that.

Some employers do all of the above.

Other employers hire other people to do it all.

In a large corporation, most of what you just listed is done by various employees, not some individual.

That's what CEO's, CFO's, COO's, and all the people that work beneath THEM are for...

 

[Jarhead]

Exactly where did I say anything that would give you that assumption? I respect you LW, but I resent that you see me in that light.

Every employee in a company is valuable.

The workers get paid a salary for the work done. I have no complaints about that whatsoever.

But we can not lose sight of the decisions people make.

Many prefer being an employee as they cherish their free time for family, fun, etc. They like to know that they can call in sick when they are sick and the company wont fail becuase of it. They like to be able to take personal days when they wish. Vacations when they desire.

Others opt to be owners as they prefer control of their destiny and the financial rewards. They (we) are always thinking about business, rarely take a sick day when we are sick, and worry about our employees everyday.

Neither is right or wrong. They are personal choices.

I prefer you not assume my thought process. You painted me out to be the kind of person I personally despise. All are important in a company, but some positions are just not worthy of higher salaries. They top out. I will elaborate if you prefer, but I am sure you know what I mean.

Actually I apologize. I said that because you were agreeing with the other post, in the middle of a conversation about this subject.

FoxFyre, whom I love arguing with by the way, but sometimes get a little accusatory towards, is a pure Ayn Randian. LOL.

Sorry for the late response. I got caught up in one of Greggs "my penis is bigger than your penis and your penis is just too stupid to know it" arguments in another thread.

I should have read the entire interaction between you and Fioxfrye before I intervened.

My error.

 

[Intense]

For a self proclaimed atheist, Ayn Rand did write Unalienable Right, Conscience, Reason, Value. I think that what she was really against was swallowing Anyone Else's version of what God is or isn't. I think in her own way, she knew him. Ayn's upbringing in the Soviet Union Post Communist Revolution, was allot different than what most of us had to survive. The Effect's show in all of her writings. Try out "We The Living", or "Anthem", before you judge her.

You know what? You actually have a good point.

I get most of my interpretation of what Ann Rand believes second-hand. I have honestly only read bits and pieces of her actual work.

Do you have a specific book that would sum her up best that I might pick up and read?

I probably won't agree with most of it, but I prefer to be educated before passing judgement.

On Her... "We The Living", or "Anthem". My favorite of her works "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".