|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Also small businesses aren't taxed like big businesses. The vast majority of small businesses are pass-through entities, meaning that the profits are taxed as income of the owners. They don't have to file their own taxes or pay the corporate tax.
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Business taxation should be progressive, dependent on revenue and net income as well as number of employees. It's that simple. Businesses are only taxed on profits, so if a small business is bitching about their taxes, apparently they have enough money to be raising wages.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
This is anecdotal, but pretty much every employment law violation i've ever seen has been a mom and pop/small time place, and this is in the construction industry. Stuff like making people clock out and continue or not paying overtime, these are things i've seen. The problem, essentially, is that the only way that these laws get enforced is by lawsuits and fly-by-night operations don't tend to have enough money to get anything out of it. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 11:17 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:This is anecdotal, but pretty much every employment law violation i've ever seen has been a mom and pop/small time place, and this is in the construction industry. Stuff like making people clock out and continue or not paying overtime, these are things i've seen. this is not limited to small business. when i was working for pizzahut, management would allot a specific number of paid worker hours to the store to get its work done. the amount allotted was well below what was needed, but according to corporate that's no excuse and they start leaning on the store managers to manage better. so the store managers pressure workers to go off the clock and keep working. the extra-nice part of this arrangement is then corporate can blame store managers for labor violations if it ever becomes a problem, and claim they had no idea what was happening big corporate firms violate labor law too, they just do it in a way that they can claim ignorance Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:26 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is not limited to small business. when i was working for pizzahut, management would allot a specific number of paid worker hours to the store to get its work done. the amount allotted was well below what was needed, but according to corporate that's no excuse and they start leaning on the store managers to manage better. so the store managers pressure workers to go off the clock and keep working. the extra-nice part of this arrangement is then corporate can blame store managers for labor violations if it ever becomes a problem, and claim they had no idea what was happening fair enough, i never worked retail so that makes sense
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
I remember around when the economy started to get lovely in the early 2000s and the news were putting up interviews with local businesses that were complaining they HAD to use illegal immigrants because American citizen labor was too expensive. Like I'm supposed to feel bad that not only will you not pay Americans a decent wage, but you hire people that you can pay less than minimum under the table? Businesses like that deserve to go under, especially if the owner isn't taking to lowest possible salary he or she can. It's hard for me to believe the idea of "well we just CAN'T pay these people $15 an hour" if they themselves are making a lot more than that in profits.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:06 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that any business that isn't able to pay its workers a living wage is literally a drain on society. That's not even a moral judgment, it's just a fact. People don't just magically "get by" when their employers don't pay them enough to live on, they fall back on social safety nets or charity. That, or they make up the difference through credit, which itself ends up being a systemic issue if it's happening on a wide enough scale. It's fine if you want to say that small businesses and entrepreneurship in general are worth the social costs, but you need to at least acknowledge that those costs exist and that society is subsidizing small business owners that engage in these practices.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
institute a minimum universal income indexed to inflation, a minimum productivity wage (25/hr at present), a job guarantee and nationalize big businesses as state-run cooperatives while allowing small and medium-sized enterprises to continue. can i be president now
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:institute a minimum universal income indexed to inflation, a minimum productivity wage (25/hr at present), a job guarantee and nationalize big businesses as state-run cooperatives while allowing small and medium-sized enterprises to continue. can i be president now
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Why not fully automated luxury gay space communism
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Why basic income and minimum wage and job guarantees? Just do basic income and make employee ownership mandatory - ditch everything else. thats to have a full employment economy where labor is incentivized but not mandatory. also a shorter workweek. it's basically the nep WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Why not fully automated luxury gay space communism it is fun to say that but very idealist
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Why basic income and minimum wage and job guarantees? Just do basic income and make employee ownership mandatory - ditch everything else. Mandatory employee ownership is one of relatively few significant and fundamental changes to our economic system (I'm not counting stuff like UBI or UHC as this sort of change) that I feel fairly confident would be a good idea and doesn't carry much of a risk of catastrophic failure. While I'm open to the idea of more "extreme" socialist or communist ideas, I feel like a certain amount of change can have unpredictable effects and so I can't confidently say "this is a good idea" about things like that. But I think workers' self-management would be a good idea and is very unlikely to cause some sort of economic collapse. The only real downside of workers' self-management is a potential decrease in growth due to businesses not being able to attract outside investment in the form of selling shares to other private individuals or organizations, but I think the benefits would outweigh the harm.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Aaaand this thread curves right back around to dumb lf.txt nonsense that would make a politican unelectable.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Mandatory employee ownership is one of relatively few significant and fundamental changes to our economic system (I'm not counting stuff like UBI or UHC as this sort of change) that I feel fairly confident would be a good idea and doesn't carry much of a risk of catastrophic failure. While I'm open to the idea of more "extreme" socialist or communist ideas, I feel like a certain amount of change can have unpredictable effects and so I can't confidently say "this is a good idea" about things like that. But I think workers' self-management would be a good idea and is very unlikely to cause some sort of economic collapse. The only real downside of workers' self-management is a potential decrease in growth due to businesses not being able to attract outside investment in the form of selling shares to other private individuals or organizations, but I think the benefits would outweigh the harm.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Aaaand this thread curves right back around to dumb lf.txt nonsense that would make a politican unelectable. Delve into this a bit, if you would. Which specific proposals are you referring to? Also, Warren is doing exactly what the Democrats should be doing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that any business that isn't able to pay its workers a living wage is literally a drain on society. That's not even a moral judgment, it's just a fact. People don't just magically "get by" when their employers don't pay them enough to live on, they fall back on social safety nets or charity. That, or they make up the difference through credit, which itself ends up being a systemic issue if it's happening on a wide enough scale. It's purely a moral judgement and a bad one. Businesses employ people for their labor - economically they owe society what that labor is worth. They don't own the person because they employ them and any notion that they're somehow responsible for that persons life a weird dark twist on economic fundamentalism. Society is responsible for that, and needs to recognize it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Businesses employ people for their labor - economically they owe society what that labor is worth. A business's profit is the difference between what they owe to the laborers and how much they actually pay them
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's purely a moral judgement and a bad one.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Aaaand this thread curves right back around to dumb lf.txt nonsense that would make a politican unelectable. Does it make them unelectable because you specifically wouldn't want it because it would make it more difficult to evict homeless people?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:A business's profit is the difference between what they owe to the laborers and how much they actually pay them
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So do you think investment has no place in an economy at all? Clearly the way we do things now is dysfunctional as all hell, but shouldn't there be some vehicle for people to pool resources to accomplish a goal? I think investment should be democratically decided for the benefit of the whole society, instead of being dictated by a small ruling class of unaccountable owners for their private benefit. As a thought experiment the simplest way of rectifying this injustice would be to allow every laborer to keep their surplus and decide themselves how it is re-invested. In practice there are very good reasons why society might want to agree on everyone pooling a surplus towards more centrally managed reinvestment instead. But if this public surplus is democratically managed in the interest of the workers, then it still belongs to them.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that any business that isn't able to pay its workers a living wage is literally a drain on society. That's not even a moral judgment, it's just a fact. People don't just magically "get by" when their employers don't pay them enough to live on, they fall back on social safety nets or charity. That, or they make up the difference through credit, which itself ends up being a systemic issue if it's happening on a wide enough scale. You could say the same thing for literally any government service. Schools, roads and national defense all subsidize businesses in the same way that the EITC, welfare and Medicaid do. The fact that these services are financed by taxes and provided by the government, rather than provided by business directly, doesn't imply the businesses represent a net loss for society. This is easier to recognize when you think about people with disabilities. Some people with disabilities are incapable of achieving an hourly productivity that equals the cost to society of allowing them to live a full life. Even in a world where labor has all the negotiating power, and laborers are paid the entire value of their labor, some will not be productive enough to receive more in wages than they cost in social upkeep. It does not follow that these people should never enter the labor force. A minimum productivity wage has a similar problem--it excludes anyone who cannot produce X hourly productivity from the labor force, and the higher X is set, the more people are excluded. The idea that more productive people should subsidize less productive people is central to socialism. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:07 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's purely a moral judgement and a bad one. This is a nice sentiment, but you aren't actually describing the society that we live in. We expect people to pay their own way by selling their labor and ultimately treat safety nets as purely temporary measures to help people who are "down on their luck." There is an implicit expectation that employers provide for their employees because employment is literally the only regular, non-conditional source of income available to most people. Businesses that fail to provide for their employees are pushing those costs back to society, which is fine (the part of my post that I think you seem to be ignoring) as long as we acknowledge that fact and deal with it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:A business's profit is the difference between what they owe to the laborers and how much they actually pay them If you assume owners can't add value - a dumb foundational assumption of Marxism.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If you assume owners can't add value - a dumb foundational assumption of Marxism. Owners should go on strike by giving away everything they own, show those workers how essential the value they add really is. I bet their employees will soon come begging them to own everything again.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If you assume owners can't add value - a dumb foundational assumption of Marxism. what value do they add that's not stolen from others?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If you assume owners can't add value - a dumb foundational assumption of Marxism. were you under the impression that owners did not pay themselves a salary asdf32 if so i have extremely bad news for you about your foundational assumptions re: capitalism
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what value do they add that's not stolen from others? An amount that might not be zero considering how fundamentally important capital allocation and investment choice is to producing value.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:An amount that might not be zero considering how fundamentally important capital allocation and investment choice is to producing value. "slaveholders are very important to society because they are the ones telling the slaves what to work on"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:An amount that might not be zero considering how fundamentally important capital allocation and investment choice is to producing value. last i heard even the "best" investors don't pick good choices above and beyond what picking randomly would. doesn't seem like the owner class is too good at capital allocation when they're sending billions to taxi companies that are stealing other company's tech and have no business plan to ever reach profitability. especially when every inch of infrastructure in the US is crumbling. seems like taxing these people and taking away money they're too stupid to use properly would be a good thing, and then you could use it to provide social programs that allow for class mobility and fresh ideas to reach the doddering owner class.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:"slaveholders are very important to society because they are the ones telling the slaves what to work on" Slavery was bad independent of the value added by slaveholders (which also wasn't zero). It was bad because it was bad. Likewise you could still not like capitalism or argue that owners get more than their fair share while not claiming that investment and capital allocation are non-value producing tasks.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:last i heard even the "best" investors don't pick good choices above and beyond what picking randomly would. doesn't seem like the owner class is too good at capital allocation when they're sending billions to taxi companies that are stealing other company's tech and have no business plan to ever reach profitability. especially when every inch of infrastructure in the US is crumbling. seems like taxing these people and taking away money they're too stupid to use properly would be a good thing, and then you could use it to provide social programs that allow for class mobility and fresh ideas to reach the doddering owner class. http://longbets.org/362/ http://www.businessinsider.com/vanguard-shines-in-protgs-1-million-bet-with-warren-buffett-2017-2 Best part of the story: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-03/why-i-lost-my-bet-with-warren-buffett Guy loses bet and doubles down that "if things had been different I would have won" Literally better to just dump money into an index fund than have a hedge fund manage it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Slavery was bad independent of the value added by slaveholders (which also wasn't zero). It was bad because it was bad. In contemporary capitalism most of these decisions are made by employees at investment firms or other finance consultants and the shareholders just collect the profits without any input. Even if that wasn't the case, investment decisions are currently made not with any public good in mind but solely for the private benefit of the owners, which is how we end up with a society that can both produce amazing wealth and luxury while at the same time so many people are unable to afford basic dignity. The decision of what to work on, what to work towards, and how to allocate resources towards these goals should be made democratically and the power to make them should ultimately lie in the people doing the work.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Slavery was bad independent of the value added by slaveholders (which also wasn't zero). It was bad because it was bad. The point is that investment and capital allocation can be handled by employees just fine. There is no reason for managers/executives to necessarily be the only ones to get those sweet profits.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:last i heard even the "best" investors don't pick good choices above and beyond what picking randomly would. doesn't seem like the owner class is too good at capital allocation when they're sending billions to taxi companies that are stealing other company's tech and have no business plan to ever reach profitability. especially when every inch of infrastructure in the US is crumbling. seems like taxing these people and taking away money they're too stupid to use properly would be a good thing, and then you could use it to provide social programs that allow for class mobility and fresh ideas to reach the doddering owner class. Which indicates how efficient the market is...and the market is controlled by owners.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which indicates how efficient the market is...and the market is controlled by owners. companies that shouldn't exist and shouldn't continue to stay in business aren't what i'd call market efficiency. uber has no business plan that leads to profitability, and loses half a billion quarterly easily, yet it's unbelievably highly valued. that looks like the market being extremely inefficient and shoveling resources into a burning moneypit.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which indicates how efficient the market is...and the market is controlled by owners. Efficient at turning a profit for investors, not efficient at providing for the needs of everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Efficient at turning a profit for investors, not efficient at providing for the needs of everyone. Which is why the average first world economy is more than 40% government controlled.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Aaaand this thread curves right back around to dumb lf.txt nonsense that would make a politican unelectable. If you're referring to my post, I don't think the Democrats should advocate for workers' self-management* right now. I just think it would probably be a good thing if it happened. I think that, for the time being, Democrats should just focus on general social democracy things like funding various forms of social welfare with higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses. *Since people often seem to heavily misunderstand this, workers' self-management doesn't mean random laborers are voting for every business decision. It just means they're responsible for stuff like electing executive officers. I mean, I guess they could vote on decisions as well, but it's not necessary. The main benefit is that it gives workers' a way to get rid of leadership that treats them poorly. For whatever other issues it had, this system seemed to work fairly well in former Yugoslavia (or at least it wasn't directly related to what ended up causing the country to collapse). JeffersonClay posted:The idea that more productive people should subsidize less productive people is central to socialism. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need. In practice, pay is rarely actually correlated with productivity though. There are many factors that contribute to what a person is paid beyond how much they're directly earning for their employer (which is virtually impossible to calculate for certain jobs, despite those jobs still being important). asdf32 posted:If you assume owners can't add value - a dumb foundational assumption of Marxism. Well, this kind of requires that you assume owners retaining the money in question adds more value to society at large than the money being passed on to either workers (through higher pay) or consumers (through lower prices). Condiv posted:what value do they add that's not stolen from others? Owners do add value, but the amount they earn is vastly, vastly disproportionately higher than that value. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which is why the average first world economy is more than 40% government controlled. The governments of first world economies are controlled by the capitalist ruling class and work for them, not for workers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 21:57
|
|