Paying a "fair share"

As I said, I'm totally in favor of the right of employers and unions to negotiate whatever terms to which they agree. What I do oppose are law that restrict the liberty of people or that take their property. For example, according to US law, once employees create a union, the employer is legally barred from negotiating with any other employee or union from that point forward. That law is unjust and ought to be repealed, as it represents a violation of liberty.

 

This is one of those platitudes that sounds good on the surface but when you dig deeper they do not make any sense.

Very interesting though how many folks "liked this post" showing how easily folks buy into nonsensical platitudes.

Having roads causes cause's others to have to pay more.

Eating fatty foods, boating, skiing, driving a car or any other behavior that has increased risk causes others to pay more due to the burden on the healthcare system.

In order to avoid all behaviour that might result in someone paying more; one should probably not get out of bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

I think the existence of others is a bit of a claim on your wealth. Is your wealth not a function of the existence of others ?

What is "your wealth" ? Does this wealth include your earnings ? Does Government ( a representation of "others") have zero claim to any of your earnings ?

You can see that although what you say sounds good on the surface. We only need to dig just below the surface to show that substantiating these claims is not so simple.

 

Please demonstrate that these companies - or any other - never took out a business loan to fund expansion.

Including their initial factories. MSFT may be an exception, due to the low overhead of software.

 

You've never hired anyone in your life.

 

that's horse crap

roads benefit everyone. people who breed like stoned rabbits cost us money and do nothing for the public good. People who become addicted to drugs cost us money. so your claims are specious

 

What's horse crap is you not addressing the majority of my points.

Sure folks who become addicted to drugs costs us money, alcohol included. Are you suggesting we ban alcohol ?

What about people engage in other risky activities that, as like with alcohol can cost us money such as skiing, boating, and driving a car ?

What about Guns ?

You are the one that made the claim that we should avoid behavior that might result in someone paying more. All the above behaviors can result in someone else paying more ? Some (such as a heroin addict) might result in folks paying less.

Some people do not use roads and some use them more than others. If I do not use the road, why should I pay for the behavior of others ?

What is specious about the claims that you ignored because they make what you are saying look silly ?

 

we'd be WAY ahead without SS and without 90% of the spy and military, too. the latter create tons of hate for us all over the world, to no good end. Other countries do without such militaries, so why can't we, hmm? Get OVER the idea that the US is batman and defending everyone's freedom. we don't, never have, can't, never will and shouldn't. it' none of our gd biz if it doesn't occur inside of our borders, just like it's none of anyone else's biz if it doesn't occur inside of their borders!

 

your existence is not a proper claim on the wealth of others and it appears you think that the rich have an unlimited duty to pay for all the things others wants.

and that is why this country is in the shape it is in.

guns are great, those who want to ban them generally are those who want to parasitize the productive

 

That, in the end, is the great debate.

Those who believe just being born makes a human of worth, vs those who believe a human must earn their worth.

I'm more about results, and lets face it, humanity did wonders when the latter was the constant belief system for the 1st 10k years of civilization. Since the prior started getting representation, it has been a downhill slope.

 

I believe that you misunderstand or are misinformed about the law.

A shop that votes to unionize only unionizes those employees that voluntarily join the union. Employees that don't choose to join the union are still self-representative with management although union pay and benefits are generally, but not always, also shared by those that choose to never join the union. A union shop isn't always a "closed shop" and in that case employees can choose to belong to the union or not when they accept employment. It is true that the workers, not the employer, choose which union is to represent them.

To my knowledge there are no laws that prevent a company from talking with other unions all they want but because those unions don't represent the workers so it would be rather stupid to do. The company cannot logically negotiate a contract with the other unions so long as the contract is in force with the workers union. Of course when the contract expires the company can talk with whoever they want but any contracts entered into are not binding on the workers because they're not members of the 'other' union.

Like you I object to laws that violate the rights of the person but I don't see that except in union bustling laws like "right to work" laws that violate the right of the workers and employers to enter into voluntary contacts based upon mutual consent to the terms of the contract which can include "closed shop" provisions.

 

If a person takes out a personal business loan it's still private funding because they're financially liable for the promissory note. No one ever implied that privately owned enterprise never borrowed money and that would be a stupid thing to claim. A loan is not an outside investment because it has to be repaid by the borrower.

Outside investments in an enterprise, such as purchasing IPO stock offerings, are not a repayable note. Purchasing existing stock from an existing stockholder is not an investment in the corporation because the corporation doesn't secure a dime of funding from the transaction. It is merely a change of ownership that doesn't financially benefit the enterprise one iota.

 

Once again you have ignored my primary refutation of your claim that we should avoid behaviors that result in others paying more.

There are clearly all kinds of behaviours that you either engage in, or do not think that should be banned on the basis that these behaviors can result in others paying more.

 

non-responsive. I am a net tax payer, I pay far more federal taxes than I use in federal services

Most people do not

 

YOU chose to make the ridiculous statement that 99%+ of economic expansion is inside money, and now you're absolutely admitting your statement was ridiculous - but you're still trying to shield it by claiming that the individual has to pay it back.

That's nonsense on several fronts:

1) The claim I made was that other people invest in companies, and that it was commonplace. Bank loans are an example of that, but only one.

2) Many investments in companies - startup or otherwise - are as a result of being unable to secure conventional financing. These sources range widely from family, to private equity investment. Next, you'll tell us things like Shark Tank don't exist, and/or are not common. You've painted yourself into a corner; just admit your point was stupid.

3) There is no guarantee of success. Banks write off bad loans all the time, as do private investors. People don't often "pay back" bad loans in business; they declare bankruptcy or negotiate OICs.

That's absolute nonsense also. Fact is that transactions move stock up or down - and when they move up, EVERY shareholder - including the corporation itself - benefits.

Or do you now want to claim that you do not know what a corporate stock BUY BACK is?

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your entire attempt to post on this point exposes this fact.

 

The example you are giving does not identify value. It identifies profit motive, loyalty to the company, etc.

Hoq one defines value is determined first by price and then by intangible qualities, or vice versa. For instance, what is the most valuable thing you have Shiva? I am willing to bet that a price cannot be measured because of its intangible qualities. Or in other words, what you are willing to give for that valued item cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

But with employers, job skill and the requirement of job skill to make a profit is nnot defined by value. It is defined by accounting, cost/benefit analysis, profit motive. The reason is that none of us have that unique job skill whee the employer cannot do without. the job skill is interchangeable. What the company wants is, for a lack of a better term, loyalty. Loyalty to the company first and to its product.

Thus it is incorrect to say that one should obtain a job skill that a employer values. What should be said is that one should obtain a set of skills that can maximize the profit for the employer through the benefit and privledge of your services. If the company does not like you, then it can easily replace you.

This is not a knock on employers or employees. It is simply re examining the mindset of that job. As long as I do X, Y, and Z, my employer will keep me on the payroll. But the employer at any time can replace me with someone else who has the exact same set of skills I have. The employer will risk the intangible aspects of me working there with the new employee. If a better cost/benefit is provided and the management is convinced, then they will change persons without missing a beat. Thus, it is not the job skill that the employer values, it is the intangibles that cannot have value.

Again, how you define value is how you define what employers really want. It in my analysis, value is not placed at the job skill since job skills are interchangeable nowadays.

 

Actually I have.

 

Paperboys don't count.

 

Neither was your existence when you were between the ages of 0 and 18. And I seriously doubt your parents made enough to support you and your world no matter how hard they tried.

- - - Updated - - -

No try tax accountant in a CPA firm. Or manager at a fast food jont when I was in college. Take your pick.

 

What is your point here? I don't see one, as any numbskull can figure out the intellectual bankruptcy in attempting to equate a parent's support of their child - which is strictly voluntary and willingly engaged in - with citizens coercing more of another citizen's money through excessive taxation.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not seeing an example of you hiring your own employee in there, which I'm guessing was turtledude's point.

 

you are wrong about my parents.

so I am writing your comments off as ignorant.

and I pay over 450K a year in federal taxes alone. I fund lots of parasitic voters

 

Turtle basically argued that poor people should not have children since they cost money and thus cannot support them independently. This is ironic coming from a poster whose own personal history shohws that his parents were in the same boat. Thus, if the rule of not having children because one cannot afford to have them were to be applied equally, then the poster Turtle should have never been born.

One does not have to hire one's own employee to have experience in hiring.

You stated I have never hired anyone, and yet, I have shown you I have.

 

No, that was Bow To The Robots. Pay attention. I said you never hired your own employee, which you clearly haven't.

 

Sorry, but background checks do not lie.

 

It was also you when you say, "paperboy does not count" and the following reply, "I don't see an example of you hiring your own employee."

Both responses indicate that you were making the same claim and as a result, you were proven wrong.

 

Initial start-up capital from the founders of an enterpise do not fund expansion. Profits from consumption fund expansion. When we address initial "external" investment from the founders and even subsequent investments from public stock offerings they only represent a very miniscule percentage of the value of large corporations today that have become more valuable because of sales and not investments.

A bank loan is not an investment in the enterprise because it must be repaid. Loans must be repaid from profits (consumption). As noted actual "investments" in enterprise only represent 0.00005% of all investments so effectively 0% of investments fund enterprise.

The "many" referred to don't represent a significant percentage of enterprise. Yes, there are some venture capitalists that are willing to take risks and perhaps "penny stocks" is more representative but realize that the enterprise must already exist before these types of investments are secured and the investments only provide minimal capitalization. Overwhelmingly for these enterprises to succeed and expand they have to rely on sales (consumption) of their goods and/or services.

By analogy we can look at the snowflake. It requires a microscopic piece of dust (investment) and from that speck of dust a snowflake is created by water vapor in the air (consumption).

Yes, because of bad business planning (or no business planning at all) four out of five new business start-ups fail often resulting in bankruptcy for the founder. In many cases the founder secured a personal loan based upon a second mortgage and they lose their home during the bankrupty. Banks typically don't make "business loans" for new start-up enterprises but instead make personal loans. The business doesn't go bankrupt, the person goes bankrupt.

You're confusing business bankruptcy with personal bankruptcy for the most part. Banks are very reluctant to loan money to a busness and only do so if the business has a record of sales (consumption) and assets to secure the loan. In all cases of business loans the money must be repaid from the profits (sales) of the enterprise so sales (consumption) is still funding the enterprise.

Stock prices do move up and down based upon the perception, real or imagined, of the value of the enterprise that is created by consumption of the goods or services provided by the enterprise. The enterprise only "profits" from this if it chooses to issue more stock which is, effectively, diminishing the ownership of the existing stockholders (i.e. if there are 10 million outstanding share those original stockholders own 100% of the corporation but if the corporation issues another 10 million shares the original stockholders only own 50% of the corporation). It is a divestiture of the ownership to secure additional funding based upon the value of the corporation created by sales.

Every time we turn around it's the sale of the goods and services that expands the company and not the investments in it. Any enterprise that relies on investments fails. Those are typically referred to as Ponzie schemes because the enterprise is unable to sustain itself based upon the consumption of the goods and services it provides (i.e. consumption).

A corporate buy back is a reduction in the number of "owners" (represented by outstanding stock) funded by sales/profits (consumption) that increase the value of the remaining outstanding stock. Once agian "consumption" is the key factor as the value of the enterprise remains unchanged overall. Just the number of outstanding shares are reduced which increases the value of the remaining outstanding shares proportionately. Without consumption generating profits a stock buy back cannot occur.