Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

To the people that support redistribution of income... Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the following?
    I support the redistribution of income and marks
    0.91%
    I support the redistribution of income, but not marks
    47.27%
    I support the redistribution of marks, but not income
    0
    0%
    I support neither form of redistribution
    52.73%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Getting paid? It's not as if I suggested the owner of the supermarket and the people working there shouldn't get money for their work... give them a really high salary, for all I care.

    If getting paid is supposed to be incentive enough for me to go to work, why shouldn't it be an incentive to open a business?

    So we're back to my original question: where's the moral argument in support of taking more than the sandwich is actually worth off me?



    Oh really, I chose to buy the sandwich somewhere where they want to make profit? Next time you see a non-profit supermarket, please tell me.
    I can't believe how silly you are, Elcano.

    Give them a high salary? What will they pay their staff from? Profits made from sales is what's used to pay staff/improve resources/expand.

    Some people don't have a business idea and don't mind getting a salary by working somewhere, do you know many entrepreneurs who are still working for someone else? No? Why, well because there is little point in doing so, they are making enough money, the more time they spend on their business the likelier it is to succeed.

    They are not taking it off you.

    The ingredients needed to make the sandwich as well as the equipment, environment, time AND the labour cost money, what you're trying to say is that the labour to make the sandwich is worth nothing, if that's what you're trying to say then why should chefs even get paid? On average, say it costs them £1.20 to make the sandwich, why should they only charge £1.20? They don't owe you anything, in order for a BUSINESS to survive and prosper it needs to be profitable, not charitable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wiska)
    I can't believe how silly you are, Elcano.
    Oh really? Let's see then.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    Profits made from sales is what's used to pay staff/improve resources/expand.
    Well no. If you had actually read my posts, you would have noticed I was referring to the profit made ON TOP of the money used to pay production, salaries, taxes, interest etc.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    They are not taking it off you.
    Oh yes they are. The profit they make is not really justified in any other way than 'they can do it and consequently they do it'. Guess what - government can redistribute wealth and it does do that. Well, that was an easy way to justify it.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    On average, say it costs them £1.20 to make the sandwich, why should they only charge £1.20?
    Because taking more just because they can is somehow akin to stealing. Wait, isn't that also the argument used against redistribution of wealth? Well, try to decide - you can't have it both ways.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    in order for a BUSINESS to survive and prosper it needs to be profitable, not charitable.
    How is not charging more than what something is actually worth 'charitable'? And why exactly do you 'need profit'? What does profit actually do to help the business? It keeps shareholders happy, that's certainly true... but might not the business prosper even more if there wasn't the need to take a certain amount of money out of it?

    By the way, you don't even take into account the possibility that the whole economic system might also be run differently. Capitalism is still not proven to be the only possible system, while it certainly has been shown to have significant systemic flaws. Of course, those aren't as bad if you're one of the rich guys. It tends to work in your favour then.


    Hm. Turns out I wasn't being 'silly' after all. Turns out you just didn't read and/or think carefully enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Oh really? Let's see then.

    Well no. If you had actually read my posts, you would have noticed I was referring to the profit made ON TOP of the money used to pay production, salaries, taxes, interest etc.

    Just because they have money left over they should only charge consumers exactly what it cost them to make? The whole point of a business is to make money. That extra money could always be used in the future, such as how big companies like Google and Amazon use it to buy new businesses and merge it into their own. What if there is sudden damage from a natural disaster, if they have no money in the bank who will fund repairs? Are you completely against saving?

    Oh yes they are. The profit they make is not really justified in any other way than 'they can do it and consequently they do it'. Guess what - government can redistribute wealth and it does do that. Well, that was an easy way to justify it.

    The Government do so because they have to do so. I am not against taxation at all. Taxation, be it in all kinds help fund services we take for granted and all need to use, such as Education, Healthcare, Welfare and Policing. If poor people didn't get benefits to give them a chance at life what do you think would happen? The rich don't even use half of these services and still pay tax, those who evade tax being exemptions here.


    Because taking more just because they can is somehow akin to stealing. Wait, isn't that also the argument used against redistribution of wealth? Well, try to decide - you can't have it both ways.

    How is it STEALING!? If you think that by paying £2 for a sandwich is stealing then go to the market, buy your ingredients and make your own sandwich! So you want prices to reflect production costs for as long as the company still have excess money in the bank, when that runs out then what? Want them to make products at a loss for you? Why? Selling isn't stealing, it is a voluntary trade between a producer and a consumer whilst taxation is involuntary.


    How is not charging more than what something is actually worth 'charitable'? And why exactly do you 'need profit'? What does profit actually do to help the business? It keeps shareholders happy, that's certainly true... but might not the business prosper even more if there wasn't the need to take a certain amount of money out of it?

    You seriously don't know what profit does to help a business?... As long as the company is profitable it will look like a worthy investment, the more investments the larger the business can expand if they want to do so, this also means more jobs for everyone. Look at Tesco for example, they used their profits to go from just a supermarket to dealing in the mobile network industry/insurance/creating their own brand etc...

    By the way, you don't even take into account the possibility that the whole economic system might also be run differently. Capitalism is still not proven to be the only possible system, while it certainly has been shown to have significant systemic flaws. Of course, those aren't as bad if you're one of the rich guys. It tends to work in your favour then.

    I like Capitalism but regulated, as it is in England - Free NHS, Education but people can still work their way to the top. The idea that everybody is equal is ridiculous. What exactly do you want? That everyone regardless of profession gets 'given' 50k every year? The well off would be funding those who might not even have a decent job or none at all. Why must a cleaner get the same as a doctor?


    Hm. Turns out I wasn't being 'silly' after all. Turns out you just didn't read and/or think carefully enough.

    Yes, I still believe that you were. In order for someone to pay £2 for a sandwich the consumer must value that item as much and wants it and therefore will willingly buy it. Some may say a date with Natalie Portman is worthless but because I really want it I wouldn't mind paying a lot just to have the privilege. Buy what you want, don't buy what you don't want. Simple as that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wiska)
    The whole point of a business is to make money.
    Well yeah, in our system - yes. It still doesn't show why profit as such is necessary or morally right.

    You can put some money aside for further use (saving, as you say) without having to label it as 'profit'. That money is not going anywhere, it stays in the business and it will be exclusively used for the business, i.e. it is part of what is needed to provide me with a sandwich. I have no problem with that.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    The rich don't even use half of these services and still pay tax
    They own most of the money, they pay most of the tax. I think this is only fair.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    If you think that by paying £2 for a sandwich is stealing then go to the market, buy your ingredients and make your own sandwich!
    Oh come on. You know that's no argument. Even if I buy the ingredients, they're still making a profit off me, and what about my smartphone? Am I supposed to build one myself, too?

    (Original post by Wiska)
    So you want prices to reflect production costs for as long as the company still have excess money in the bank, when that runs out then what?
    Yes I want prices to reflect actual production costs. I don't think that's too much to ask. Why should any money 'run out' just like that? I'm ready to pay for the full - as you said, 'actual' - production costs. That doesn't lead to 'running out of money'.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    Look at Tesco for example, they used their profits to go from just a supermarket to dealing in the mobile network industry/insurance/creating their own brand etc...
    As I explained before, I'm not against putting some money to the side for a rainy day or for things like expansion. What I am against is using money to do things like pay preposterous bonuses or extra large returns on investment just so some guy can make more money off his capital.


    (Original post by Wiska)
    The idea that everybody is equal is ridiculous.
    I think you'll find a lot of constitutions disagree with you there.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    What exactly do you want? That everyone regardless of profession gets 'given' 50k every year?
    No, that wasn't my intention, but while we're talking about that:

    (Original post by Wiska)
    The well off would be funding those who might not even have a decent job or none at all.
    Don't you SEE what you're doing there?

    You just labeled jobs that currently don't pay well as 'not decent'. Without a shred of evidence why that should be true. Why is a cleaning job not 'decent'? Because it doesn't pay well? True, but where exactly is the celestial law stating that that must be so? And would that job be 'decent' if it paid more?

    Don't you notice that you're using the way the system is set up as a means to defend the way the system is set up? That's a circular argument, and certainly not very helpful at all.

    Why are some 'well off' and others not so much? Because the system works to increase inequalities rather than decrease them (that's why redistribution is a subject of discussion, after all). So basically you're saying that because of the way the system works, the system has to work like that. That just doesn't clinch it for me.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    Why must a cleaner get the same as a doctor?
    Isn't the more important question: why not?

    What makes the doctors work so much more important? Yes, it's a noble profession (btw, not all high-paying jobs are...), but someone has to clean the toilets, too! And at the end of the day, the cleaner hasn't been idle either... one could still offer more pay on grounds of longer working hours or special dangers.

    Remember - I'm not actually advocating equal pay. I'm just trying to show why perhaps some principles you defend aren't as set in stone as you may think.

    (Original post by Wiska)
    Yes, I still believe that you were.
    Who's actually 'silly' here - me, who is criticizing the basis of the whole thing (and I'm still making an academic argument here, as I don't actually say I wan't all profit abolished), or you, who is basically using the way the system is set up as an argument for the status quo, as if no change was ever possible?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Well yeah, in our system - yes. It still doesn't show why profit as such is necessary or morally right.

    You can put some money aside for further use (saving, as you say) without having to label it as 'profit'. That money is not going anywhere, it stays in the business and it will be exclusively used for the business, i.e. it is part of what is needed to provide me with a sandwich. I have no problem with that.

    Why can't be labelled as profit? It is profit, should we call it losses because how would one save losses? This profit when saved is called assets/capital

    They own most of the money, they pay most of the tax. I think this is only fair.

    Okay, I also agree that the rich should pay more tax but only slightly more, it's ridiculous to have them pay 75% or other similar amounts. Just because you can live on 20k a year doesn't mean you should, some people want luxuries, want to travel, have business idea, all of which require more money, I mean if you have it, spend it or save it, it's up to you!

    Oh come on. You know that's no argument. Even if I buy the ingredients, they're still making a profit off me, and what about my smartphone? Am I supposed to build one myself, too?

    If not the market then why don't you grow your own vegetables? You're not supposed to, no. Why should someone pay workers to manufacture something, and only have you pay for the cost of the materials and not labour? When buying something it is the seller that makes the terms, unless it is an auction you can't say 'Oh nice iPhone, I'll pay you 50p, thanks'



    Yes I want prices to reflect actual production costs. I don't think that's too much to ask. Why should any money 'run out' just like that? I'm ready to pay for the full - as you said, 'actual' - production costs. That doesn't lead to 'running out of money'.

    Yes it will. Not making profits means no more money coming in. Wages is money out, rent is money out, heat and lighting is money out, insurance, energy - eventually money WILL run out.

    Do you not even know the basic costs of businesses


    As I explained before, I'm not against putting some money to the side for a rainy day or for things like expansion. What I am against is using money to do things like pay preposterous bonuses or extra large returns on investment just so some guy can make more money off his capital.

    Okay, the reason for investments is to make more money off them. Say I invest £2 million in a firm to fund their new product, it isn't possible for their project to go ahead without me. This said product becomes extremely profitable, and makes the business £500 million - am I only entitled to £2 million back or more? Are you against the founders of big businesses getting paid more than their employees?


    I think you'll find a lot of constitutions disagree with you there.

    Yes we all look the same, have red blood, we're born and then we die etc...

    What separates people from one another is their ability to use their intelligence creatively, some people are harder workers, some people work towards making their dreams come true, some people can speak in various tongues fluently and learned to do so independently, some realise the importance the education and excel in it regardless of their circumstances ...and then there are people who sit at home and do nothing and find it unfair some people are more successful than others due to using their skills. Do you think a person who thinks all there is to life is getting drunk and having sex everyday can compare to someone like Steve Jobs/ Mark Zukerberg?



    No, that wasn't my intention, but while we're talking about that:

    Don't you SEE what you're doing there?

    You just labeled jobs that currently don't pay well as 'not decent'. Without a shred of evidence why that should be true. Why is a cleaning job not 'decent'? Because it doesn't pay well? True, but where exactly is the celestial law stating that that must be so? And would that job be 'decent' if it paid more?

    By decent I mean, I won't feel proud saying I clean poo and urine off toilets for a living. No matter how much cleaners get paid I won't consider it decent because it is a low skill job, a child with a broom could do it. Can said child perform surgery on a burns victim?

    Don't you notice that you're using the way the system is set up as a means to defend the way the system is set up? That's a circular argument, and certainly not very helpful at all.

    Why are some 'well off' and others not so much? Because the system works to increase inequalities rather than decrease them (that's why redistribution is a subject of discussion, after all). So basically you're saying that because of the way the system works, the system has to work like that. That just doesn't clinch it for me.

    As I said, I don't mind redistribution. It would be wrong for those on welfare to get more than those that work. I am for welfare because it gives the poorest of the poorest a stable platform which they can use to get somewhere in life. I hate those who think living on benefits is a lifestyle choice. See here

    Isn't the more important question: why not?

    What makes the doctors work so much more important? Yes, it's a noble profession (btw, not all high-paying jobs are...), but someone has to clean the toilets, too! And at the end of the day, the cleaner hasn't been idle either... one could still offer more pay on grounds of longer working hours or special dangers.

    A doctor is more important because his profession requires a lot of skill, no randomer could do it, it requires a lot of training and dedication. If a profession has no noble cause but isn't affecting anyone then it shouldn't be highly paid? What about a games programmer? Dentist (Cosmetic), Pilot, Train driver, Researcher, Scientist?

    No, no! The more hours you work the longer you get paid anyway. In truth you can't compare hard work to productivity. For example if you were to host a competition where the winner would get an Easter egg:

    Person A spends 5 hours learning how to work out 3x+4= 13 and still can't figure it out, he's been working hard, staring at that book, thinking but he can't complete the test.

    Person b works it out in 10 seconds and completes every other answer correctly, who should get the easter egg here?


    When it comes to dangerous jobs such as working in mines and foundries, do you tend to see degree level educated working there? No right, because it is an UNDESIRABLE job. The low skilled can't do anything else so that is their only choice. Who's fault is it that they have such a limited amount of job prospects?

    Remember - I'm not actually advocating equal pay. I'm just trying to show why perhaps some principles you defend aren't as set in stone as you may think.

    I believe in Meritocracy and this is achievable in countries like the UK, who is mostly capitalist. High earners pay almost over 50% of what they earn... I am for inheritance too as I want my future children to begin on an even higher platform so they can achieve even greater things. Having rich people in the world or having children inherit their wealth affects me in no way. You are what you make yourself

    Who's actually 'silly' here - me, who is criticizing the basis of the whole thing (and I'm still making an academic argument here, as I don't actually say I wan't all profit abolished), or you, who is basically using the way the system is set up as an argument for the status quo, as if no change was ever possible?
    I never said change isn't possible, I like change. I want people to realise that technology would eventually wipe out low skilled jobs, that's why I don't value them. As long as you think a business has a moral obligation to not make a profit on their products then yes, it still is you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Getting paid? It's not as if I suggested the owner of the supermarket and the people working there shouldn't get money for their work... give them a really high salary, for all I care.

    If getting paid is supposed to be incentive enough for me to go to work, why shouldn't it be an incentive to open a business?

    So we're back to my original question: where's the moral argument in support of taking more than the sandwich is actually worth off me?
    No we're not back to your original question because you never answered my point. If the supermarket cannot make a profit selling you the sandwich, what is the point of them providing the sandwich?



    (Original post by Elcano)
    Oh really, I chose to buy the sandwich somewhere where they want to make profit? Next time you see a non-profit supermarket, please tell me.
    Yes you do have a choice- grow your own food.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Isn't the more important question: why not?

    What makes the doctors work so much more important? Yes, it's a noble profession (btw, not all high-paying jobs are...), but someone has to clean the toilets, too! And at the end of the day, the cleaner hasn't been idle either... one could still offer more pay on grounds of longer working hours or special dangers.
    Because cleaning is an easy job - measured by the number of people that could do it - and being a doctor isn't. That's what I think these arguments come down to, the fewer people who can do a job the better paid it will be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Totally infantile reasoning from the original poster.

    What about the massively wealthy and successful individuals who didn't do well at school for whatever reason?

    The comparison you've made is ludicrous, it assumes that accumulated wealth is directly proportional to the effort or intelligence of the individual in question.

    There has to be some kind of redistribution of wealth in order for the economy to function.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    No we're not back to your original question because you never answered my point. If the supermarket cannot make a profit selling you the sandwich, what is the point of them providing the sandwich?




    Yes you do have a choice- grow your own food.
    What's the point? I already answered that. The owner can get a good salary out of it. I, as a non-businessman, am supposed to find this incentive enough to go to work. What's the owners problem? Why does he need more?

    So AGAIN we're back to my question: what's the moral argument for profit?



    And yeah, I could grow my own food, I totally could. Everybody could, in fact. It's not as if most people lived in a city and had a completely different skillset.

    Come on now. You know your 'argument' is stupid. There's no choice there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    What's the point? I already answered that. The owner can get a good salary out of it. I, as a non-businessman, am supposed to find this incentive enough to go to work. What's the owners problem? Why does he need more?

    So AGAIN we're back to my question: what's the moral argument for profit?



    And yeah, I could grow my own food, I totally could. Everybody could, in fact. It's not as if most people lived in a city and had a completely different skillset.

    Come on now. You know your 'argument' is stupid. There's no choice there.
    Yes- my argument is stupid..... coming from the person who is arguing businesses should not make a profit and still provide services.... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Oh yes they are. The profit they make is not really justified in any other way than 'they can do it and consequently they do it'. Guess what - government can redistribute wealth and it does do that. Well, that was an easy way to justify it.
    No; the justification is that you agreed to part with your money in exchange for a sandwich. One has no choice about paying taxes. You must surely agree that the decision to trade is as voluntary as anything can be?

    Because taking more just because they can is somehow akin to stealing. Wait, isn't that also the argument used against redistribution of wealth? Well, try to decide - you can't have it both ways.
    It isn't akin to stealing at all. You made an agreement. You were not coerced. Even in the constrained market we have no you were not coerced, although you certainly have less choices than you should have.

    How is not charging more than what something is actually worth 'charitable'? And why exactly do you 'need profit'? What does profit actually do to help the business? It keeps shareholders happy, that's certainly true... but might not the business prosper even more if there wasn't the need to take a certain amount of money out of it?
    How could a business expand without profit? And why isn't the trade which both parties agree to the best trade; you seem to want to be able to get more from a trade than the other party is willing to pay.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Would you also support the redistribution of test scores?

    Let's take three examples:

    A earns £1,000,000 as the CEO of a company that manufactures steel.
    B earns £75,000 as an accountant in that company.
    C earns £15,000 as an office cleaner in that company.

    Do you support redistributing income from A to B?
    Do you support redistributing income from A to B and C?
    Do you support redistributing income from A to C?
    Do you support redistributing income from A and B to C?

    And now consider a different situation:

    A scores 90% on an A-level English paper.
    B scores 70% on the same paper.
    C scores 45% on the same paper.

    All the students are in the same classroom, with the same teacher, in the same school. None of the students get private tuition.

    Do you support redistributing marks from A to B?
    Do you support redistributing marks from A to B and C?
    Do you support redistributing marks from A to C?
    Do you support redistributing marks from A and B to C?

    Please answer yes or no to each of the questions above, and state your reasons.
    Yes to all the income questions. No to all the grade questions. Because money is not the same as grades. Oh and this works on the assumption that rich people have earned their money, like grades. Which is dubious for many rich people - 'I inherited my grades'?? Stupid comparison. Go home OP; you're drunk
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I do not support redistributing my income to the expense accounts of Cabinet millionaires and to the vested interests they work for.

    If you're going to tax me, give the money to the people who are starving in hovels up and down the country, the mothers who can't buy their kids a coat or school shoes, the disabled who can barely leave their room, let alone trek to the Job Centre to wait in a queue for the only computer they have there, to apply for fake jobs, zero-hour contracts...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Would you also support the redistribution of test scores?

    Let's take three examples:

    A earns £1,000,000 as the CEO of a company that manufactures steel.
    B earns £75,000 as an accountant in that company.
    C earns £15,000 as an office cleaner in that company.
    No I don't support redistributing income however I support a progressive tax that falls more on A and B so that it funds investment in schools and universities to ensure the UK has a supply of high skilled workers for the steel industry of the future. And a tax system that minimises the burden on C to provide work incentives for those at the margins of employment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Yes- my argument is stupid..... coming from the person who is arguing businesses should not make a profit and still provide services.... :rolleyes:
    You DO know that non-profit organisations actually exist? That there is no terrible calamity befalling them for not making profit, right?

    Or is this news to you?


    My, it is interesting to see how some people just seem to be mentally incapable of looking at something from a different perspective, especially when they're used to something... interesting, and sad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    No; the justification is that you agreed to part with your money in exchange for a sandwich. One has no choice about paying taxes. You must surely agree that the decision to trade is as voluntary as anything can be?
    No, I do not, as a matter of fact. I'm still waiting for someone to point out that option to buy food from a non-profit organisation that I seem to have missed.

    I need to eat, and I don't own a farm. So where are my options exactly, except regarding the type of food I buy?

    (Original post by Nick100)
    It isn't akin to stealing at all. You made an agreement. You were not coerced. Even in the constrained market we have no you were not coerced, although you certainly have less choices than you should have.
    Well no, as I already explained, I actually WAS coerced - not by pointing a gun at my head, but by giving me no really different option. It is normal that businesses make profit. I don't have the opportunity to show any support for a non-profit business selling food or clothes or electronic gadgets or anything like that.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    How could a business expand without profit? And why isn't the trade which both parties agree to the best trade; you seem to want to be able to get more from a trade than the other party is willing to pay.
    Well I would be the last person to deny a business the opportunity to put some extra money aside for expansion, investments and the like. But that wouldn't be 'profit' in the sense I mean, that money would stay in the business and be used for the business.

    The same would go for money used for R&D - that's not 'profit' in the sense of money made on top of all the costs, that's money needed in order for the business to survive. I realise that my HTC smartphone cost a lot of money to develop and that HTC needs more money to develop new models. I have no problem with that, I feel that this is a necessary expense and thus part of what I should pay for.

    So how do I want to 'get more'? I just don't want to give more money than the thing I'm buying is actually worth! Is that a crime or something? I'm not made of money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    No; the justification is that you agreed to part with your money in exchange for a sandwich. One has no choice about paying taxes. You must surely agree that the decision to trade is as voluntary as anything can be?



    It isn't akin to stealing at all. You made an agreement. You were not coerced. Even in the constrained market we have no you were not coerced, although you certainly have less choices than you should have.



    How could a business expand without profit? And why isn't the trade which both parties agree to the best trade; you seem to want to be able to get more from a trade than the other party is willing to pay.
    Only if you think eating is voluntary.

    This is where pro free market arguments all come a cropper. They forget to factor in reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    No, I do not, as a matter of fact. I'm still waiting for someone to point out that option to buy food from a non-profit organisation that I seem to have missed.

    I need to eat, and I don't own a farm. So where are my options exactly, except regarding the type of food I buy?
    Has it even occurred to you that there isn't a sustainable non-profit business model which does not rely on donations? Are you expecting charity? There are many places to buy food; you are claiming that you have no choices on the basis that you cannot find someone willing to sell you food with no prospect of bettering themselves - someone who will sell you food for literally no reason.

    Well no, as I already explained, I actually WAS coerced - not by pointing a gun at my head, but by giving me no really different option. It is normal that businesses make profit. I don't have the opportunity to show any support for a non-profit business selling food or clothes or electronic gadgets or anything like that.
    Has it occurred to you that you can't find such businesses is because it is impossible for them to exist for any length of time?

    Well I would be the last person to deny a business the opportunity to put some extra money aside for expansion, investments and the like. But that wouldn't be 'profit' in the sense I mean, that money would stay in the business and be used for the business.
    Do wages count as profits? If employees of the business are making more than the bare minimum they need to survive is that an evil greedy capitalist profit that must be taken away and given to Africans?

    The same would go for money used for R&D - that's not 'profit' in the sense of money made on top of all the costs, that's money needed in order for the business to survive. I realise that my HTC smartphone cost a lot of money to develop and that HTC needs more money to develop new models. I have no problem with that, I feel that this is a necessary expense and thus part of what I should pay for.
    So you realize that profits are necessary to make most businesses possible, but you still think the government should confiscate them?

    So how do I want to 'get more'? I just don't want to give more money than the thing I'm buying is actually worth! Is that a crime or something? I'm not made of money.
    Have you never heard "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it"? Do you not know about supply and demand? Do you know what happens when prices are artificially lowered?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Only if you think eating is voluntary.

    This is where pro free market arguments all come a cropper. They forget to factor in reality.
    You don't need to buy from that particular store, you don't need to buy that particular sandwich; those things are both voluntary. Should the government subsidize even the most expensive foods because eating isn't voluntary?

    You say I forget to factor in reality while completely ignoring the reality of the situation. Brilliant; absolutely genius.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    someone who will sell you food for literally no reason.
    Earning a salary is quite a good reason. As I've said a hundred times before: I'm expected to work 'just' for a salary, too, am I not?

    (Original post by Nick100)
    Do wages count as profits?
    How about actually reading anything I write? It seems I don't have to bother to write anything, really, as you either won't understand it or won't read it at all.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    So you realize that profits are necessary to make most businesses possible, but you still think the government should confiscate them?
    Not really what I've been arguing for. Again, please read my posts or don't bother to reply.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    Have you never heard "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it"?
    Yeah, and that's still bull****.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    Do you know what happens when prices are artificially lowered?
    So what does that have to do with anything?




    Really, are you just trying to write something for the sake of your post count, or are you actually trying to make any kind of argument? Because I can't really find the connection between what I've written and what you've replied.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.