That's far from being accurate. Establishing workers' ownership and management of firms will ensure a strong motivation to work, due to the equitable distribution of profits.
Considering the oft-mentioned role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation, their role is typically that of "possessing" wealth rather than independently creating it.
I can tell you straight up, I will not work under such conditions. So, I'm at least one person who would not be interested in the equitable distribution of profits. I want to be paid according to MY productivity, not yours. I'm not going to work my butt off while others benefit from my labor. I'll work as much as the laziest bastard there, so that whatever my share may be, I'll be getting the better value. I would feel disgusted behaving that way, but the alternative would be to work hard and not be paid fairly for my efforts.
Then, as an incompetent/irresponsible worker, you would be fired. Worker-owned firms would not be able to maintain their stellar record of improved efficiency over the conventional capitalist firm if they retained those who were able but not willing to work.
Really? Do you think it would be in the interest of the workers to create such insecure employment for themselves? After all, you would not be able to say, for them, how much they would need to work. You and I would only be one vote a piece. And, judging by your reaction, you and I would want to have as much opportunity to get rid of incompetent or lazy people, in order to increase productivity. But most people don't care about productivity. They want as much money for as little work as possible, and if the workers run the show, that is precisely what you will get. I'm not sure why you are expecting a different, more rational response.
Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).
Come now! The rational analysis will identify the financial class as the true "parasites."
I've already discussed "the role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation" elsewhere, which well identifies the lack of legitimate effort or just gains in the vast majority of that aggregate capital accumulation by the financial class. Considering their ultimate idleness, they serve little purpose other than provision of capital, which would be more efficiently accomplished through their dispossession and collectivization of the means of production. And as I always say, a picture speaks a thousand words!
Considering the oft-mentioned role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation,
That's far from being accurate. Establishing workers' ownership and management of firms will ensure a strong motivation to work, due to the equitable distribution of profits.
Considering the oft-mentioned role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation, their role is typically that of "possessing" wealth rather than independently creating it.
I believe that's called "inheritance" in the real world.
Since the people (government) claiming the money didn't do anything or take any risks to earn it, clearly their claim should be null and void and 100% of all inheritance should be passed on to the heirs of the estate.
I'm curious to know what you find is a "legitimate effort" or "just gain".Come now! The rational analysis will identify the financial class as the true "parasites." I've already discussed "the role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation" elsewhere, which well identifies the lack of legitimate effort or just gains in the vast majority of that aggregate capital accumulation by the financial class.
So what non-idleness must be met to satisfy your demands else you believe it "justified" to take their wealth for more "purposeful" means?Considering their ultimate idleness, they serve little purpose other than provision of capital
which would be more efficiently accomplished through their dispossession and collectivization of the means of production. And as I always say, a picture speaks a thousand words!
It's an obvious reality that people will seek to perform as little work for as much money as possible, but the capitalist economy is ill-suited to deal with this because a sufficiently high rate of equilibrium unemployment is used as a disciplinary stick to prevent workers from shirking. Since involuntary unemployment is a wasted resource, external inefficiency is thus a necessary condition of internal efficiency in a capitalist economy.
A socialist economy is able to secure both internal and external efficiency by maintaining full employment and instead creating a positive motivation for work through equitable distribution of firm profits among all the workers rather than owners separate from the workers. This is why the empirical literature does not support your speculation, and instead reflects the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises, particularly those subject to democratic management. For instance, we could refer to Doucouliagos's Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis. Consider the abstract:
We are thus not only able to observe the positive link between workers' ownership and efficiency, but the augmentation of that positive link ensured by the establishment of workplace democracy. All in all, it's similarly rational to establish a socialism and thus extend democracy into the economic realm.
I support inheritance taxes.
If someone gets money themselves then they have proven that they can invest it well.
However, there is no reason that the people who recieve the inheritance money would be any better then anyone else.
So we might as well reduce everyone's normal tax burdon.
Also, it is not fair
for someone to get all of the advantages in life just because they were close to a rich person.
People's skills should be the most of the determinant of their wealth as an adult.
Gee, that's a big surprise.
Just think, the government didn't do anything to earn the money.
The government didn't take any risks for it.
It's not any part of the government's money.
But you support the government stealing it from the people it belongs to.
How wonderful of you.
See any place in the Constitution that requires a person to prove they can accomplish something before their parents can give them money?
Funny, I can't find it either.
There's one absolute reason. It's not the government's money, it's the person who earned it's money. Unless that person writes a will giving the money away to greedy thieves who will strip his heirs of every penny they can grab, there's no reason to assume that person wants his money to go to the government.
Easily done. Cut the tax rates.
Life's not fair. It's a ****in' bitch. Quit whining.
Your momma didn't slap you enough to make you stop crying, I see.
I have this feeling you do not know the words to The Beatles "Taxman" but you sing "Kumbaya" in your sleep.
Gee, that's a big surprise.
Just think, the government didn't do anything to earn the money.
The government didn't take any risks for it.
It's not any part of the government's money.
But you support the government stealing it from the people it belongs to.
How wonderful of you.
See any place in the Constitution that requires a person to prove they can accomplish something before their parents can give them money?
Funny, I can't find it either.
There's one absolute reason. It's not the government's money, it's the person who earned it's money. Unless that person writes a will giving the money away to greedy thieves who will strip his heirs of every penny they can grab, there's no reason to assume that person wants his money to go to the government.
Easily done. Cut the tax rates.
Life's not fair. It's a ****in' bitch. Quit whining.
Your momma didn't slap you enough to make you stop crying, I see.
I have this feeling you do not know the words to The Beatles "Taxman" but you sing "Kumbaya" in your sleep.
How?
How are you merely stating my position?
You espoused it, I simply repeated it.
You are an IRS expanding, social engineering wingnut.
You claimed the tax code wasn't too complex, shouldn't be scrapped, then a few lines later complained people were stupid about taxes... ROTFLMFAO.
It's simply hilarious. You like pissing into the wind, giving yourself a golden shower I see.
2) Is merely a side effect of complexity. Reforming the tax code will make it significently easier to understand. Again, reform, not scrap.
3) The IRS actually is too small and underfunded.
6) Taxes as a form of social policy isn't inherently a bad idea. Smoking costs the nation billions in healthcare and billions in lost productivity. Furthermore, tax as a social policy lead to renewable energy systems which are getting us off foreign fossil fuels.
7) Your article is as ignorant as most people here about taxes. Marginal tax rates don't tell us much. What we want to look at is the effective tax rates.
A bit of a primer. What our system does now is to encourage rich people to change how their get their income, not by working but by investing which IMO is actually pretty good as we need rich people to provide capital. By encouraging them to earn their money by passive methods we ensure that there will be large private capital reserves to fund new businesses and new ideas.
.
In 1916 Congress for the first time levied a tax upon the transfer of a decedent's net estate. The Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives explained that a new type of tax was needed, because the "consumption taxes" in effect at that time bore most heavily upon those least able to pay them. The Committee further explained that the revenue system should be more evenly and equitably balanced and "a larger portion of our necessary revenues collected from the incomes and inheritances of those deriving the most benefit and protection from the Government."
The Committee recommended an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax because many states already imposed inheritance taxes. It felt that the estate tax helped to form a well-balanced system of inheritance taxation between the Federal Government and the various states and that an estate tax could be readily administered with less conflict than a tax based upon inherited shares.
Various changes in the estate tax provisions of law, as well as their repeal, have been proposed over the years, but the principle has been retained. Our office has available an excerpt from the Ways and Means Committee's report on the Revenue Act of 1935. The report reproduces a June 19, 1935, message from President Roosevelt to Congress advocating an inheritance tax, in addition to the estate tax. Although the inheritance tax proposal was not adopted, the message provides information on why the taxation of individuals' estates was considered appropriate.
Inheritance tax... do any of you even know why it was instituted in the first place? It doesn't seem like it.
Yeah, and it's worked out pretty good. The country didn't go into ruins, the rich continue to get richer, the rich didn't stop creating jobs... blah blah [insert repub talking point here].Yes.
The government wanted to steal money.
You may use more syllables, you won't change the conclusion.
The rational analysis will show that the financial sector provides an actual service.
The parasite class, by definition, does not.
I can see more than one reason for demanding English to be the national language.
Providing capital is a purpose, is it not?
Providing capital is a necessary purpose, is it not?
Therefore, your argument that they're useless is invalidated by your own words.
Since the people (government) claiming the money didn't do anything or take any risks to earn it, clearly their claim should be null and void and 100% of all inheritance should be passed on to the heirs of the estate.
?? where are you gettting those crazy ideas??
competition nearly always increases efficency
if you have an example of the efficency of collective economies you need an example before you type that.
I can name some, India, China and Singapore.
What do you mean wealth is "possessed" instead of created in the world?
how do you explain the large economic growth in China from some free market principles? Therefore, the wealth is created and is not stagnant in each country.
you need example and evidence for what you say.
I'm curious to know what you find is a "legitimate effort" or "just gain".
So what non-idleness must be met to satisfy your demands else you believe it "justified" to take their wealth for more "purposeful" means?
Because we all know:
1) attaining wealth is easy and only gets easier the more you make.
2) managing wealth is easy and only gets easier the more you have.
3) perpetuating your wealth is easy and only gets easier the longer you have it.
4) attaining more wealth once you have wealth is child play.
:roll:
Yes, however, were we to get rid of Heath and Human Services and Social Security, the fiscal equation balances out quite nicely. If you produce nothing, you can consume only what other people choose to share with you. If there is no charity, than the unemployed worker will be forced to work harder in order to maintain employment, thus encouraging more productive citizens in a more productive society.
I see no credibility whatsoever to the claim that worker-owned companies are in any way more efficient. It's utterly counter intuitive.
Now, we'll see how GM does. That is a worker-owned company, in part. If GM becomes increasingly efficient and efficacious over the next twenty-five years, then maybe we'll have ourselves a real case study. But, human nature and every experience we have of it, demonstrates that people work harder the more invested and responsible they are for the product.
So long as there is an inequality in self-motivation, character, and self-discipline, there will be more and less productive people, demanding an inequitable, uneven, but nevertheless fair, distribution of wealth. People that try to curb, manipulate, or condition human nature, simply by ignoring the obviousness of the truth, tend to do so at their own peril.
Yeah, and it's worked out pretty good.
Merely hoarding and "supplying" capital is not an actual service.
The provision of capital is a necessary purpose.
Merely "providing capital" and engaging in no other productive activity is both unnecessary and inefficient.
Considering the positive connection between efficiency and equity, it's mere economic rationality to ensure equality of opportunity. I know John and Ken don't tell you about this stuff, but please do try to keep up.
Well you'll have to excuse me if I don't quite have the economics hard-on you do such that I have read Robert Nozick's book or studied his theories.Actual work and fair acquisition. The current state of affairs violates the Lockean provisos established by so prominent an advocate of capitalism as Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
IOW, if I own a business I get to decide how I run it.... within the confines of labor laws and other worker protection mechanisms. I don't find anything objectionable with that."Take *their* wealth"? Capital accumulation is based on theft (considering the role of the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation), and the private ownership of the means of production creates a state of affairs that would accurately be condemned as an authoritarian social structure if manifested through the vessel of a state, and involves conditions wherein much economic structure is owned and controlled by an elite few not subject to democratic check or recall, and institute hierarchical management on the individual firm level.
So at what point of wealth does my money begin duplicating itself with minimal effort? I'm very goal oriented so perhaps you could give me something to shoot for.I'd never claim anything of the sort. Considering the limited social mobility that hampers equality of opportunity in the U.S., the reality is starkly different.
Not for the people the money belonged to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?