A living profit

[coloradoatheist]

Look, it should be a simple question, but those who are on the side of arguing that current corporate profits are excessive won't answer it.

How much profit is excessive?

Because "how much profit is excessive? isn't a simple question but a facile one. Profits are considered excessive because of the distribution and conditions precipitating it. Not any absolute quantity of ...what? The question makes no sense.

And how do you write a law on that or try and enforce it?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Because "how much profit is excessive? isn't a simple question but a facile one. Profits are considered excessive because of the distribution and conditions precipitating it. Not any absolute quantity of ...what? The question makes no sense.

And how do you write a law on that or try and enforce it?

Taxes

 

[coloradoatheist]

And how do you write a law on that or try and enforce it?

Taxes

Which we currently tax at 35%, some of the highest rates around.

 

[prideandfall]

Taxes

Which we currently tax at 35%, some of the highest rates around.

base, before deductions, actual usual tax rate is 15-20%

also, no it isn't.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which we currently tax at 35%, some of the highest rates around.

base, before deductions, actual usual tax rate is 15-20%

also, no it isn't.

It's starts out as one of the highest rates around, which then gets reduced with trying to match revenue and expenses. If corporations had their way with government, that tax rate would get around the 10 or 15% or even lower.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

base, before deductions, actual usual tax rate is 15-20%

also, no it isn't.

It's starts out as one of the highest rates around, which then gets reduced with trying to match revenue and expenses. If corporations had their way with government, that tax rate would get around the 10 or 15% or even lower be negative and they would be able to ignore all laws they didn't like.

FIFY

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's starts out as one of the highest rates around, which then gets reduced with trying to match revenue and expenses. If corporations had their way with government, that tax rate would get around the 10 or 15% or even lower be negative and they would be able to ignore all laws they didn't like.

FIFY

They would definitely want a zero tax on profits. But it's interesting to say that when corporations supposedly run the government, they can't get something is easy as reducing the corporate tax rates cut in half or more.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Because "how much profit is excessive? isn't a simple question but a facile one. Profits are considered excessive because of the distribution and conditions precipitating it. Not any absolute quantity of ...what? The question makes no sense.

And how do you write a law on that or try and enforce it?

Perhaps we can't.

Taxes (as already noted) and reverse decades of supply side policy. Make it easier for labour to organise, harder for employers to outsource, sub-contract, off-shore etc. Take money out of electoral politics. Tariffs on imports produced in locally unacceptable conditions, repatriate the tariffs to education and labour organisations in countries of origin.

You'll doubtless protest that it'll hurt US trade and jobs in various ways and you'll be half right. But that doesn't make profits any less excessive. It's a roundabout way of admitting that excessive profits are inherent in the kind of capitalism we're now subjected to.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Look, it should be a simple question, but those who are on the side of arguing that current corporate profits are excessive won't answer it.

How much profit is excessive?

Because "how much profit is excessive? isn't a simple question but a facile one. Profits are considered excessive because of the distribution and conditions precipitating it. Not any absolute quantity of ...what? The question makes no sense.

This, actually, is symptomatic of something that annoys me greatly about many recent discussions, and it is the lack of specificity. And this lack is so pervasive that it can't be coincidental.

People say they advocate a living wage. I say "how much?" I don't get an answer, because my question is considered "complex." People say corporate profits are too high and there should be a limit. I say "how much?" I don't get answer for the same reason. I'm willing to discuss any given number for either of those questions. I'll probably be on the opposing side of the discussion, but I'm willing to discuss it. I'll be reasonable and discuss it.

But I'm not given an answer to be reasonable with. Sure I'll probably disagree and I'll be considered unreasonable, but I'm being reasonable enough to actually talk about the number. But I'm not given that. I'm given floating abstract targets that nobody knows what they are.

It's not MY job to come up with the specific problem. If a person says "here I have identified what I think to be a societal problem and something should be done about it" it is the job of that person, not me, to say "and here is the what should be done about it."

 

[Canard DuJour]

Because "how much profit is excessive? isn't a simple question but a facile one. Profits are considered excessive because of the distribution and conditions precipitating it. Not any absolute quantity of ...what? The question makes no sense.

This, actually, is symptomatic of something that annoys me greatly about many recent discussions, and it is the lack of specificity. And this lack is so pervasive that it can't be coincidental.

People say they advocate a living wage. I say "how much?" I don't get an answer, because my question is considered "complex." People say corporate profits are too high and there should be a limit. I say "how much?" I don't get answer for the same reason. I'm willing to discuss any given number for either of those questions. I'll probably be on the opposing side of the discussion, but I'm willing to discuss it. I'll be reasonable and discuss it.

But I'm not given an answer to be reasonable with. Sure I'll probably disagree and I'll be considered unreasonable, but I'm being reasonable enough to actually talk about the number. But I'm not given that. I'm given floating abstract targets that nobody knows what they are.

It's not MY job to come up with the specific problem. If a person says "here I have identified what I think to be a societal problem and something should be done about it" it is the job of that person, not me, to say "and here is the what should be done about it."

I refer you to the post to which you ostensibly reply.

And this lack is so pervasive that it can't be coincidental.

Certainly.

 

[PyramidHead]

Because "how much profit is excessive? isn't a simple question but a facile one. Profits are considered excessive because of the distribution and conditions precipitating it. Not any absolute quantity of ...what? The question makes no sense.

This, actually, is symptomatic of something that annoys me greatly about many recent discussions, and it is the lack of specificity. And this lack is so pervasive that it can't be coincidental.

People say they advocate a living wage. I say "how much?" I don't get an answer, because my question is considered "complex." People say corporate profits are too high and there should be a limit. I say "how much?" I don't get answer for the same reason. I'm willing to discuss any given number for either of those questions. I'll probably be on the opposing side of the discussion, but I'm willing to discuss it. I'll be reasonable and discuss it.

But I'm not given an answer to be reasonable with. Sure I'll probably disagree and I'll be considered unreasonable, but I'm being reasonable enough to actually talk about the number. But I'm not given that. I'm given floating abstract targets that nobody knows what they are.

It's not MY job to come up with the specific problem. If a person says "here I have identified what I think to be a societal problem and something should be done about it" it is the job of that person, not me, to say "and here is the what should be done about it."

Why should everybody who identifies a legitimate problem need to have a concrete opinion about its solution? In these cases, it's obvious that people who advocate a living wage want something higher than it is now, and profit reduction proponents want something lower than what it is now. It's also obvious that nobody in the first category wants an infinitely high minimum wage, and nobody in the second category wants zero profits. No one seems to have any issue discussing the effects of raising or lowering these things, because there are plenty of examples from all around the world to support either one. People who support universal health care can do so without identifying the exact mechanism by which it must occur, because other civilized nations have already done much of legwork. On the contrary, the request for a specific threshold or dollar amount isn't a good faith attempt to have a reasonable discussion, because a reasonable discussion is already happening but you refuse to participate in it unless you are provided with a strawman to attack. Not everybody has a complete alternative policy outlined in their head when they express a negative view about something.

 

[untermensche]

"How much profit is excessive?" is far from an important question.

The question is; How high do profits have to rise before most workers get a taste of them?

Because for the past 50 years most workers have not gotten any.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People say they advocate a living wage. I say "how much?" I don't get an answer, because my question is considered "complex." People say corporate profits are too high and there should be a limit. I say "how much?" I don't get answer for the same reason. I'm willing to discuss any given number for either of those questions. I'll probably be on the opposing side of the discussion, but I'm willing to discuss it. I'll be reasonable and discuss it.

This is part of why I say it's really a code-word for "more than they are worth". Almost nobody is willing to put numbers to it--which only makes sense if they know those numbers are unreasonable.

 

[Togo]

This, actually, is symptomatic of something that annoys me greatly about many recent discussions, and it is the lack of specificity. And this lack is so pervasive that it can't be coincidental.

Does this mean you're ready to discuss what specific political positions count as libertarian?

 

[Harry Bosch]

"How much profit is excessive?" is far from an important question.

The question is; How high do profits have to rise before most workers get a taste of them?

Because for the past 50 years most workers have not gotten any.

?? Of course not. A worker is paid a "salary". Profit is defined as revenue - expenses. Expenses include salary.

 

[untermensche]

"How much profit is excessive?" is far from an important question.

The question is; How high do profits have to rise before most workers get a taste of them?

Because for the past 50 years most workers have not gotten any.

?? Of course not. A worker is paid a "salary". Profit is defined as revenue - expenses. Expenses include salary.

So if work is more profitable most workers deserve no part of that increase in profits?

This is what?

A commandment from the gods?

 

[dismal]

?? Of course not. A worker is paid a "salary". Profit is defined as revenue - expenses. Expenses include salary.

So if work is more profitable most workers deserve no part of that increase in profits?

This is what?

A commandment from the gods?

How do you assess how much profit a worker deserves?

Let's try an example:

Worker A is a data entry clerk for a company that makes $600 million profit/yr.
Worker B is an identically performing data entry clerk for a company that loses $100 per year.

How much does each deserve?

 

[untermensche]

So if work is more profitable most workers deserve no part of that increase in profits?

This is what?

A commandment from the gods?

How do you assess how much profit a worker deserves?

Let's try an example:

Worker A is a data entry clerk for a company that makes $600 million profit/yr.
Worker B is an identically performing data entry clerk for a company that loses $100 per year.

How much does each deserve?

I thought we were talking about profits.

Something more than zero.

If people actually cared we would have all kinds of ways to make estimates. We are incredibly good at coming up with ways to make estimates.

 

[dismal]

How do you assess how much profit a worker deserves?

Let's try an example:

Worker A is a data entry clerk for a company that makes $600 million profit/yr.
Worker B is an identically performing data entry clerk for a company that loses $100 per year.

How much does each deserve?

I thought we were talking about profits.

Something more than zero.

If people actually cared we would have all kinds of ways to make estimates. We are incredibly good at coming up with ways to make estimates.

I do not detect an answer there. A number would be nice. An approach to getting a number might aid a discussion of the topic.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This, actually, is symptomatic of something that annoys me greatly about many recent discussions, and it is the lack of specificity. And this lack is so pervasive that it can't be coincidental.

Does this mean you're ready to discuss what specific political positions count as libertarian?

I've done so many times. The problem is, the specific political positions I discuss aren't in accord with the strawmen popular around here.