mnealtx 0 #76 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuote>if there is no estate there can be no karmic payout. ?? No - I am saying there is an estate, and it has negative value. In more pedestrian terms, it's like a house with an upside-down mortgage - you owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If that's what the workers inherited, how much would they have to pay each? an estate with negative fiat value is no estate and there is no karmic payout. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If the workers are responsible for the success and therefore deserve a share, they are also responsible for the failure and should share in paying.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #77 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>if there is no estate there can be no karmic payout. ?? No - I am saying there is an estate, and it has negative value. In more pedestrian terms, it's like a house with an upside-down mortgage - you owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If that's what the workers inherited, how much would they have to pay each? an estate with negative fiat value is no estate and there is no karmic payout. Nice dodge. If the workers are responsible for the success, how are not also responsible for the failure? the entrepreneur takes that responsibility (in the same way that they keep/are responsible for the profits if there are any).stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>if there is no estate there can be no karmic payout. ?? No - I am saying there is an estate, and it has negative value. In more pedestrian terms, it's like a house with an upside-down mortgage - you owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If that's what the workers inherited, how much would they have to pay each? an estate with negative fiat value is no estate and there is no karmic payout. Nice dodge. If the workers are responsible for the success, how are not also responsible for the failure? the entrepreneur takes that responsibility (in the same way that they keep/are responsible for the profits if there are any). I see - so the workers get all of the benefit and none of the risk. Nice scam.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #79 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>if there is no estate there can be no karmic payout. ?? No - I am saying there is an estate, and it has negative value. In more pedestrian terms, it's like a house with an upside-down mortgage - you owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If that's what the workers inherited, how much would they have to pay each? an estate with negative fiat value is no estate and there is no karmic payout. Nice dodge. If the workers are responsible for the success, how are not also responsible for the failure? the entrepreneur takes that responsibility (in the same way that they keep/are responsible for the profits if there are any). I see - so the workers get all of the benefit and none of the risk. Nice scam. if the entrepreneur fails then they get laid off - and usually quicker than the ceo. (do you agree that the worst moochers are those who inherit and do nothing)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 December 8, 2009 If the entrepreneur takes all the risk, then the entrepreneur takes all the profit. If the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. Can't have it both ways, sorry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #81 December 8, 2009 Quote If the entrepreneur takes all the risk, then the entrepreneur takes all the profit. If the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. Can't have it both ways, sorry. the workers don't get a share of the fiat profit at the time - they get a share of the estate (if there is one). if the employer doesn't like the system then he doesn't have to implement it. i can see an employer getting the best libertarian workers though by taking it up stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #82 December 8, 2009 Quotethey get a share of the estate (if there is one). if the employer doesn't like the system then he doesn't have to implement it. i can see an employer getting the best libertarian workers though by taking it up We already have something of that sort with big companies and it would work a LOT better than 'hoping' the owner dies - Incentive stock options - Stock purchase plans - etc people get the benefits even when the BOD or the primary owner lives or dies ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #83 December 8, 2009 QuoteIf the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. if a pilot crashes a plane is it the fault of the cabin crew?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #84 December 8, 2009 Quote Quote they get a share of the estate (if there is one). if the employer doesn't like the system then he doesn't have to implement it. i can see an employer getting the best libertarian workers though by taking it up We already have something of that sort with big companies and it would work a LOT better than 'hoping' the owner dies - Incentive stock options - Stock purchase plans - etc people get the benefits even when the BOD or the primary owner lives or dies exactly - this is sort of like the ultimate employee share ownership system. not too radical after all stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. if a pilot crashes a plane is it the fault of the cabin crew? If the pilot lands the plane is it due to the work of the cabin crew?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #86 December 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote If the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. if a pilot crashes a plane is it the fault of the cabin crew? If the pilot lands the plane is it due to the work of the cabin crew? that's what the pilot is paid for (as ceo of the plane he accepts the highest pay and has the responsibilty to land the plane - if he fucks up whose fault is it)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 December 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote If the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. if a pilot crashes a plane is it the fault of the cabin crew? If the pilot lands the plane is it due to the work of the cabin crew? that's what the pilot is paid for (as ceo of the plane he accepts the highest pay and has the responsibilty to land the plane - if he fucks up whose fault is it) Cool - so if the plane lands successfully, it's due to the pilot and not the cabin crew - glad you agree that your 'karmic accounting' is a 'krock'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,075 #88 December 9, 2009 >an estate with negative fiat value is no estate and there is no karmic payout. es·tate (-stt) n. 1. A landed property, usually of considerable size. 2. The whole of one's possessions, especially all the property and debts left by one at death. So where are they going to come up with the money? Or do you advocate systems that are only applied when you stand to make money, only to abandon them when they might cost you something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #89 December 9, 2009 Quote Or do you advocate systems that are only applied when you stand to make money, only to abandon them when they might cost you something? Where have you been? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #90 December 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote If the workers deserve a share of profit due to helping build the company then they deserve a share of debt due to helping the company fail. if a pilot crashes a plane is it the fault of the cabin crew? If the pilot lands the plane is it due to the work of the cabin crew? that's what the pilot is paid for (as ceo of the plane he accepts the highest pay and has the responsibilty to land the plane - if he fucks up whose fault is it) Cool - so if the plane lands successfully, it's due to the pilot and not the cabin crew - glad you agree that your 'karmic accounting' is a 'krock'. no, karmic accounting is a neat idea to fuse together Left and Right Libertarian strands. in your scenario the pilot (who is still an employee) gets to keep the entire profit of the passengers and then blames the cabin crew if he crashes the plane! would you rather work for an employer with a karmic accounting system or not? or would you rather be one of those moochers who just live off mum and dad's money?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #91 December 9, 2009 Quote>an estate with negative fiat value is no estate and there is no karmic payout. es·tate (-stt) n. 1. A landed property, usually of considerable size. 2. The whole of one's possessions, especially all the property and debts left by one at death. So where are they going to come up with the money? Or do you advocate systems that are only applied when you stand to make money, only to abandon them when they might cost you something? how much of a parents debts do children inherit from their parents estate? for karmic accounting purposes a negative fiat estate is a zero. ask yourself this question - why should karmic accounting be reversible (an employer is using others labour not the other way round).stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #92 December 9, 2009 Quote Or do you advocate systems that are only applied when you stand to make money, only to abandon them when they might cost you something? like shareholders in limited liability corporations?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #93 December 17, 2009 shareholders of course claim all the benefits of ownership except when it comes to 'their' corporation going bankrupt - then of course 'their' liability is 'limited'. and who gives them this magical ability - the state.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #94 December 21, 2009 what a mess... QuoteImagine a story about tax policy created by horror writer Stephen King. A fictional Congress, divided between anti-tax ideology and fiscal responsibility, amends the inheritance tax on the very wealthy so that it disappears entirely one year and then returns at steeper rates the following year. Over the zero year, death rates skyrocket in the nation's most affluent zip codes. Seemingly robust and healthy billionaires perish in mysterious accidents. Lexus wheels fall off from Bloomfield Hills to Scarsdale to Beverly Hills. Sailboats and yachts inexplicably crash in calm coastal and Caribbean waters. Tainted champagne wipes out clusters of prosperous alumni at class reunions from dozens of elite prep schools from Groton to Choate. Meanwhile, thousands of infirmed elders take their own lives in organized rituals called "legacy sacrifices." Pledging unlimited inheritances to their heirs, these multi-millionaires die with smiles on their faces knowing they've outfoxed Uncle Sam one last time. If only this were a fiction. We could actually see these scenarios play next year, unless the real U.S. Congress takes action and prevents one of the more bizarre twists in tax legislation in history from coming to pass. In 2010, the estate tax, our nation's only levy on inherited wealth, is set to disappear completely. Then in 2011 the tax returns to 2001 levels, with substantially lower wealth exemptions and higher rates. Talk about perverse incentives. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/144699/stephen_king_meets_the_estate_taxstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #95 December 21, 2009 Quote what a mess... Quote Imagine a story about tax policy created by horror writer Stephen King. A fictional Congress, divided between anti-tax ideology and fiscal responsibility, amends the inheritance tax on the very wealthy so that it disappears entirely one year and then returns at steeper rates the following year. Over the zero year, death rates skyrocket in the nation's most affluent zip codes. Seemingly robust and healthy billionaires perish in mysterious accidents. Lexus wheels fall off from Bloomfield Hills to Scarsdale to Beverly Hills. Sailboats and yachts inexplicably crash in calm coastal and Caribbean waters. Tainted champagne wipes out clusters of prosperous alumni at class reunions from dozens of elite prep schools from Groton to Choate. Meanwhile, thousands of infirmed elders take their own lives in organized rituals called "legacy sacrifices." Pledging unlimited inheritances to their heirs, these multi-millionaires die with smiles on their faces knowing they've outfoxed Uncle Sam one last time. If only this were a fiction. We could actually see these scenarios play next year, unless the real U.S. Congress takes action and prevents one of the more bizarre twists in tax legislation in history from coming to pass. In 2010, the estate tax, our nation's only levy on inherited wealth, is set to disappear completely. Then in 2011 the tax returns to 2001 levels, with substantially lower wealth exemptions and higher rates. Talk about perverse incentives. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/144699/stephen_king_meets_the_estate_tax Yes, it would be an absolute tragedy to only let them tax someone's income once. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #96 December 21, 2009 we've already established that an inheritance is unearned income (not very libertarian - getting something for nothing - otherwise known as mooching) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #97 December 21, 2009 Quote we've already established that an inheritance is unearned income (not very libertarian - getting something for nothing - otherwise known as mooching) Just because it wasn't earned by them, doesn't mean it wasn't earned. If you think double-taxation is libertarian, you need to do some reading. You want unearned income? Why don't you look up EIC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #98 December 21, 2009 so you think mooching off unearned wealth is libertarian - odd.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #99 December 21, 2009 Quoteso you think mooching off unearned wealth is libertarian - odd. You can't mooch off something that was voluntarily given. You complain about "unearned wealth" yet you seem willing to take the earnings of others for your own benefit. I'd say nice try, but I don't think that even qualifies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #100 December 21, 2009 Quote You can't mooch off something that was voluntarily given. course you can - moochers use that arguement all the time (is that you)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
