Which doesn’t mean that it creates value generally speaking. If all you did was shifting the tax burden from them to someone else (and actually, I do believe this is a major part of your job), they would still pay a lot for your services, even though it wouldn’t create any value at all.
Wow, didn’t realize you were such an expert. :rolleyes:
It sounds like you think that the government must raise taxes on other people to counter the reduced taxes I get for my clients (and others). However, it could also be true that the strategies I use to reduce people’s taxes are factored in to the government’s estimates of annual intake, so they have absolutely no effect on the overall tax burden. Which of us is right? I don’t really know. I’m sure the answer is a lot more complicated if you look at different aspects of what I do. But I do know that your simplistic analysis is wrong.
In which case the government could simply revise the tax scheme so that it could collect at the optimal tax rate already. This would cut out the middleman, eliminate the deadweight loss, and be revenue neutral for the government. The fact that a tax strategy game exists both for the government and for the taxpayers does not make it efficient, and it certainly doesn’t make it valuable. It is the world we live in, and it is perfectly reasonable to observe its self-defeatism.
Well, the value I add is also in that I give people reliable tax advice, not necessarily that I help reduce people’s taxes. Investors hate uncertainty. Sometimes the answer is “you will pay lots of tax” and they invest anyway confident that they haven’t overlooked a tax minimization strategy.
Also, it’s not like I’m peddling tax strategies that you have to pay me to find out about. Different investment strategies can be set up in different ways with different tax consequences, and I tell people all about this and recommend the one with the lower tax (sometimes it gets more complicated than this–i.e., the tradeoffs are more nuanced than lower effective tax rates).
Reread my post : you’ll notice that what I said is that being paid a lot by your clients isn’t an evidence that you’re creating a large amount of value for society. Are you going to argue against that? If so, I would mention that a thug who racket shop owners is also extremely valuable for a Mafia boss, but hardly creates any value.
What you’re arguing against actually is my mention “(and I do believe it’s a major part of your job)”.
Briefly : even if your strategies are factored in by the government (and they surely are), it still means that the government, knowing that your clients will pay less, will have to make sure that some others will pay more to reach its budgetary objective. If it happens that the strategies you’re using create no value, or even destroy value (your client would have invested instead in something creating more value, and so would have the persons who aren’t your clients and are paying more taxes as a result of your strategies), won’t your client be equally willing to pay you, as long as he gets ahead (his tax rebate being higher than the loss incurred by investing in something less productive)?
What is your job? What are you paid for? Creating value, or making sure your client will maximize his income/wealth, when taking taxes paid into account? If you conceive a strategy that will result in funnelling your client’s money in a really so-so investment but will significantly reduce his taxes, will you propose this strategy to him? If you answer yes, then you aren’t paid to create value. If you answer no, then you aren’t good at your job. Which one is it?
I get this. Good investors think on the margin, and a tax strategy is key. It is “value” because people are willing to purchase your service rather than spend the same amount of money on something else. The perennial disconnect in these conversations is between normative and non-normative ideas of value. The value of what you (or I for that matter) does has self-evident value from a non-normative perspective. I understand why this is not justification enough for a lot of people.
This is just so at odds with the realities of what my job is that I don’t even know how to respond to it. It appears you think you have made a point, so let’s just leave it at that.
It’s a good thing that’s not the point I was trying to make.
If you’d read my entire post, which I seriously doubt you did, I would hope that you would have realized that you got my point. . . exactly backwards.
Here’s the relevant part of my post in regards to the example given about Madonna.
Rand Rover had claimed that he helped people. While there are many ways to help people, in the context of this thread which is about people trying to get a job in a tough economy, I think it’s reasonable to think that if someone posts that they help people they mean that they try to help elevate other people out of poverty or out of their difficult circumstances. And ideally they’d do this on a permanent basis by creating skills or ways that isn’t a temporary fix.
Creating economic value is not always the accurate measure of this. If that were the case, Mother Theresa would have created only minimal value since she didn’t create massive wealth. Or church programs which only teach life skills or job skills would only create minimal value since they don’t create massive wealth.
When Rand Rover noted that he helped people in his job, there was a component of indirect value creation through economic value and there was the helping people on an individual basis by helping them reduce their taxes. I created the Madonna example to take out the part about helping people on an individual basis and only focus on the indirect economic value. When Rand Rover agreed, he was saying that most of his value comes from this indirect route, not by directly helping people.
Of course, now that I’ve had to dissect the example like this, it barely has any entertainment value any more. 
You’re only realizing this now?!
(Just kidding)
Well, you’ve now only quoted one person there. He’s an atheist too. How about arrogant fucking atheist?
Even though someone pointed out at various ways in which Madonna create value indirectly, the main way she’s creating value is very direct : she provides entertainment. Whether you personally like the product or not, you can’t deny that it is produced. And if I find the product to be valuable and pay for it, it has no consequence for you.
** Rand Rover **'s job is to provide informations, basically. Assuming that he’s saying the truth, we can know that some people value what he’s producing. They’re paying to get it, and use it. But given this line of work, when someone buys his product, it has consequences for the rest of us : we pay more taxes.
This might be a net gain (for instance if it drives money towards an activity the government has correctly identified as being desirable), neutral (For instance Rand’s clients pay less taxes, people who can’t afford him pay more taxes) or detrimental (For instance, nobody is using his money optimally, but his client is still better of). We can’t know and it’s of no relevance to him because the potential losses for non-clients are not taken into account when one of his client evaluates the value of his work. Like externalities, sort of.
More generally, and this was my point, the fact that a particular person, or a particular group of persons, finds your work valuable isn’t an evidence that you actually are creating value. Like in my thug working for a Mafia boss example.
Even more generally, the money you make is a long way from being a perfect indicator of the value you’re creating. A housewife, or someone volunteering in a NGO creates value but makes no money. A criminal makes money but destroys value. And outside of the imaginary world of the perfect free market, even a regular worker’s pay never reflects the value he’s creating (and I would note by the way that in a perfect free market, ** Rand Rover **'s job has no value at all, because all actors are already perfectly informed and nobody needs him.)
My post wasn’t about creating value. My post was about people helping people. . . specifically helping those people who needs jobs to get out of their situation.
This was tangential to my point. Economic value is not necessarily a good indicator of helping people.
Well?
Who cares what Bricker wants? If you say something along the lines of what I suggested and Bricker calls you a liar, then you will have the rhetorical and moral high ground, so to speak.
And of course, if Broomstick were to say this, I’d certainly accept it as the truth.
'scuze me, had to follow up on a job opportunity that distracted me (which turned out to be a bust, but that’s another story…). Also, I wanted to follow up looking at hardcopy editions of the local newspaper.
First of all, my claim was in reference to the hardcopy newspaper. I have found that, indeed, the hardcopy editions DO have fewer want ads than the on-line version, as few as 2 or 3 the last few days. And I did, most certainly, see a hardcopy edition entirely without want ads. So yes, there was a touch of hyperbole BUT I still stand by my statement that there are times when, really, believe or not, but really truly THERE ARE NO WANT ADS IN MY LOCAL PAPER. At all. If you’re talking about the hardcopy editions. Which is what I was referring to, not the on-line versions. If as few as 2 or 3 are appearing on a given day is it really such a stretch to think that at times there would be NONE?
Second, no, I don’t consider obvious “work from home” scams to be a want ad even if it appears in the want ad section. It’s a scam and a fraud. Unfortunately, they also seem to outnumber legit want ads these days.
Just to clarify - if there was a legit want ad but I wasn’t qualified I’d still call it a want ad (and probably mention I wasn’t qualified for it). That wasn’t what I was referring to.
The good news is that I did secure a painting job for tomorrow - but it’s only a couple days work at most, then I’m back to beating the bushes. The job market sucks right now, you know?
It’s not a stretch at all. I believe that completely.
The problem arose when you said:
That doesn’t suggest that you found one day with no want ads. That suggests you went weeks with no want ads.
Now that you have (finally!!) explained that you were talking about a one-day experience, I have no trouble whatsoever with your claim.
I will say that your earlier admonition to another poster about how he shouldn’t hold readers responsible for his unclear writing is now revealed to be somewhat ironic.
Holy shit, Bricker, what do you want from the woman? I could see that you had a point earlier, although I couldn’t blame her for being evasive when your initial posts seemed so hostile in tone. But now she’s made it clear that she was NOT exaggerating about there being no job listings at all, and that “It’s been like that for weeks” doesn’t mean “The exact state I described has been repeated daily without exception for each of the past several 7 day calendar periods,” but neither does it mean “It happened once but it felt like weeks and that sounds much better and more dramatic.” Rather, it meant, “The overall situation exemplified by finding no want ads at all in the paper has been ongoing for some time such that the state I described is no longer exceptional but may be regarded as typical.” This is not hyperbole or even exaggeration. It’s a perfectly reasonable statement of fact, even if the reading is not the most immediately obvious one.
And yet rather than apologize for harassing someone who has legitimate reason not to be in the most expansive mood right now, you try to get one last dig in.
Again, your rhetorical criticism appeared reasonable at first. But your tone and demeanor has been appalling. Shame on you.
You know, Bricker, he’s got a point. “It’s been IDENTICAL TO that for weeks” would suggest that for weeks on end, there were no want ads in th dead tree edition of the paper. But she didn’t say that. She said “It’s been LIKE that for weeks.” Which can be parsed to mean similar to, as in: not a single usable job listing for the fourteenth day in a row.
You know, sometimes it’s more important to pick the right battles than to win the ones you pick. A person’s character is reflected in their choice of engagements as much as in their success or failure in such. YMMV.
Enjoy,
Steven
When somebody says “NO, I REPEAT, NO” they are trying to impress upon you that they mean it literally, are not exaggerating, and want to be taken exactly at their word. It’s bullshit to claim otherwise when called on it. And the defense “well when I stressed how impossible it is to find want ads, I didn’t actually mean it’s impossible, just if you only look in one specific place and nowhere else” is just bizarre.
Oh, please. People say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons and imputing intention based on a choice of wording is risky, especially in brief, unedited text composed in the heat of the moment like a message board posting. Saying “NO, I REPEAT NO” could be meant to emphasise the literalness of the statement, but it could just as easily be emphasis for emotion. We’re used to people speaking this way and don’t even notice it, but we expect more precision and accuracy in writing because we’re still used to reading polished, edited writing such as we find in printed matter. Message board posts are closer to speech, and while some nitpicking is to be expected (and is welcomed here!) and carefulness and precision is appreciated, it’s going too far, IMO, to keep beating this horse, especially after she’s given a perfectly reasonable (and far more literal than might have been expected) explanation.