# Profits are a tax on labor **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283 "2013-07-12T03:07:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/441 "2013-08-09T16:53:30Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > In the hypothetical the person _did_ construct a building; something they perhaps would not have done if they could not have made a profit by renting it out. Well, in the ordinary course of things, the people who do the building - the carpenters and electricians and plumbers and whatnot - they don’t get a share of the profits of the building. They get wages or salaries instead. It is true that no one would finance the payment of all those wages and salaries, without the prospect of future profits. I would argue that the owners of money have a problem: they have money, but they want more of it. They want to pay the people who make the building as little as possible, and charge the renters as much as they can. That’s how you maximize your profits. So what you’d like to see, as an owner, is lots of unemployment. The more people there are looking for work, the less you have to pay for workers. On the other side of the coin, what you’d like to see is as few other apartment buildings going up as possible. The fewer other options renters have, the more they’ll have to pay to live in your building. So workers, then, want the opposite: they want lots of employment, and lots of apartment buildings going up. And nicer and nicer, and bigger and bigger ones, if possible. So there is a way, using purely market forces, to shift income away from owners to workers: keep unemployment low. Keep people working, so that they’re producing lots of apartment buildings (or whatever) so that consumers (meaning the workers themselves) have lots of choices, and the prices of things (like apartments) stay low. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/442 "2013-08-09T17:16:49Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I would argue that the owners of money have a problem: they have money, but they want more of it. They want to pay the people who make the building as little as possible, and charge the renters as much as they can. That’s how you maximize your profits. True. > [@LinusK](#): > > So what you’d like to see, as an owner, is lots of unemployment. The more people there are looking for work, the less you have to pay for workers. False. People without work can’t afford your rent so either you lower your prices or they live somewhere cheaper. Maybe a tent. > [@LinusK](#): > > On the other side of the coin, what you’d like to see is as few other apartment buildings going up as possible. The fewer other options renters have, the more they’ll have to pay to live in your building. TrueBut… you’d like for all of them to live in your building and pay you rent so you’d be smart to build more buildings, not less. But since you can’t (and shouldn’t) control who builds what where… > [@LinusK](#): > > So workers, then, want the opposite: they want lots of employment, and lots of apartment buildings going up. And nicer and nicer, and bigger and bigger ones, if possible. > > So there is a way, using purely market forces, to shift income away from owners to workers: keep unemployment low. Keep people working, so that they’re producing lots of apartment buildings (or whatever) so that consumers (meaning the workers themselves) have lots of choices, and the prices of things (like apartments) stay low. True. This is what the current (Western) economic model is based on. Everybody wins. Except income is not being “shifted from owners to workers” in the way that you imagine/define it. It’s a balancing act between market forces (supply & demand) and some gov’t controls (taxes, etc) to keep the ship as right as possible. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/443 "2013-08-09T17:17:18Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Well, in the ordinary course of things, the people who do the building - the carpenters and electricians and plumbers and whatnot - they don’t get a share of the profits of the building. They get wages or salaries instead. That is their choice. It is something they agreed upon. And I’m going to let you in a little secret, they also don’t get a share of the losses. They get paid\* up front, long before anyone moves in, and loooong before their are any _profits_. How long do you think it takes to build an apartment building? And I mean from the start of the planning stages with an empty lot, until the point that people pay their first month’s rent? Overall, how long do you think before the _owner_ sees any _profit_? I doubt you’re able to answer that, so maybe you could answer a different question: how much profit is made if no one moves in and the apartment sits empty? What you refuse to understand is that the carpenters and electricians got paid\*, regardless of how many renters the _owner_ has. \*With the obvious exception for cases where the project goes bust early on. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/444 "2013-08-09T17:19:00Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I would argue that the owners of money have a problem: they have money, but they want more of it. They want to pay the people who make the building as little as possible, and charge the renters as much as they can. That’s how you maximize your profits. > > So what you’d like to see, as an owner, is lots of unemployment. The more people there are looking for work, the less you have to pay for workers. > > On the other side of the coin, what you’d like to see is as few other apartment buildings going up as possible. The fewer other options renters have, the more they’ll have to pay to live in your building. _You_ are an owner of money, and you, like everyone else, want transactions to be as favourable to you as possible. If I can buy a shirt at one place for $50, and an identical shirt at another place for $25, of course I am going to buy from the second place. You could see it as everyone exploiting everyone always. Or you could see it as everyone trying to _avoid_ being exploited themselves. > [@](#): > > So there is a way, using purely market forces, to shift income away from owners to workers: keep unemployment low. Keep people working, so that they’re producing lots of apartment buildings (or whatever) so that consumers (meaning the workers themselves) have lots of choices, and the prices of things (like apartments) stay low. So countries with lower unemployment should have better salaries, right? Or just less profits for “owners”? Cheaper property? Frankly, this, and the line you keep persisting in that money is “flowing” from workers to owners suggest to me that you are not aware of even the most fundamental concepts in economics, and seem unwilling to learn any of them. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/445 "2013-08-09T17:22:35Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So where does her profit come from? Ultimately it comes from government. > > Her ability to consume without working? Ultimately it’s a government subsidy. Isn’t this the same thing the Catholic Church says to encourage tithing? “Everything you have comes from God, so you should give me, I mean God, 10%.” ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/446 "2013-08-09T17:35:04Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > That is their choice. It is something they agreed upon. And I’m going to let you in a little secret, they also don’t get a share of the losses. They get paid\* up front, long before anyone moves in, and loooong before their are any _profits_. I was about to write something to the effect of “Nothing is stopping the owner from saying to the contractors that instead of wages or a lump sum, they can renegotiate the contract to be paid $10/room/month for every month that room is occupied by a renter into perpetuity. It’s just that nobody would accept that contract. The electricians and plumbers are hardly being exploited here.” but I like what you wrote better. Tangentially, this also reminds me of a single-panel comic I saw a few years back. A man is being handed a mop by another man. The caption reads “Congratulations. You have won our lottery jackpot of $1 million. Payments will be divided into $8 increments, collectable hourly for the next 30 years. Must be present to collect.” ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/447 "2013-08-09T20:07:51Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > First of all, what is “productive use”? Is living somewhere productive? > > Secondly, what about when, inevitably, more than one person wishes to use the same portion of land? > Say I have a shack from which I sell fish. But OmniMegaCorp believe this is the only place they can build a harbour, and to them (and the economy) the site is worth $100 million. What happens next? > > Now you may say that although the government owns land and leases it out, “certificates of current occupier” or whatever are handed out and these are tradable. I can sell my certificate to OmniMegaCorp. > The problem with this is that of course it would really be the status quo. The certificates are land deeds in all but name. All we’ve added is a new tax in the form of a land lease. (1) Yes, living somewhere (up to some designated lot size) would be “productive use”. (2) No, not tradable. OmniMegaCorp is SOL in that case (and probably wouldn’t exist in my society anyway) ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/448 "2013-08-09T20:12:22Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Frankly, this, and the line you keep persisting in that money is “flowing” from workers to owners suggest to me that you are not aware of even the most fundamental concepts in economics, and seem unwilling to learn any of them. That was established several pages ago. Why do you think people keep giving up on trying to explain it to him? He’s latched onto his ‘labor theory of value’, and anything that doesn’t fit it ‘does not compute!’ ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/449 "2013-08-09T20:21:06Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > Someone did do something to earn that land. Sure, if by “earn” you mean “kill whoever was living there” or “be well connected to those in power”. > [@pancakes3](#): > > Then it was passed on down through the generations. The current generation is profiting off excess value that their forefathers generated. If that is something that you feel like is inherently immoral and arbitrary, know that it’s your hangup. Most people do not feel that way. In Japan they seem to, judging from their steep inheritance tax. > [@pancakes3](#): > > The way you’re profiting from it is waiving your potential to utilize the property and leasing it out to others. No. There is no way I could use my share in this way. > [@pancakes3](#): > > How different is today’s social organization compared to 2000 years ago when Romans would own city apartments while financed by their country villas that produced wine, oil, and livestock? Are you arguing that Rome was a just society? Really? > [@pancakes3](#): > > - Is there anything that I can pass on in inheritance, other than real estate? Personal items. > [@pancakes3](#): > > - Is there a way to answer any of these questions without being arbitrary? No. That’s how the law works. > [@pancakes3](#): > > It seems like to institute this system it requires a TON of rules and regulations - arbitrarily government mandated rules and regulations. Yup. > [@pancakes3](#): > > The alternative, the current system, where people are FREE to do as they choose with the land they own - governed by the singular law of right to property - seems to be the more obvious and elegant solution. Not to me. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/450 "2013-08-10T07:46:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > One of your problems in pushing this is that the USA was founded on the idea that this is 100% wrong. Forgot to respond to this. The original “Spirit of '76” was indeed very individualistic, laissez-faire, small government oriented, and the South persisted in that spirit to the present day. I am no fan of this “spirit”. But once they junked the Articles of Confederation, they began to embark on a path I consider the right direction and you likely see differently. I want us to continue leftward to a more centralised government operating in a communitarian manner. And it looks as though we will. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/451 "2013-08-10T11:56:41Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sure, if by “earn” you mean “kill whoever was living there” or “be well connected to those in power”. Really? Are we going to have to have this fucking conversation with you now?.. How far back in human history do you intend to drag us to try to make your case? This has become tedious. And not because many of us couldn’t find agreement with you on some issues. I think most of us would like to see a more just society where the poor and sick and unemployed have a robust and effective social network, where the middle class is not shrinking, where the very wealthy corporations contribute more to the society which enables them to do so well. There are certainly good arguments to be made for a more just tax system as well as federal gov’t programs that support large national infrastructure projects using tax dollars, implemention of a national health care program that covers everyone and (why the hell not?) more accessible public university education. I gather these are all the things you could get behind too. Right? But your approach to getting this done is so simplistic and ill thought out that it’s difficult to agree with anything you have to say on this subject. Though we’re essentially on the same side of the issue, I find myself wishing we weren’t and I don’t want anyone with opposing views thinking that your ideology reflects mine because it’s wrong and it makes my argument so much harder to make. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Not to me. You win. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/452 "2013-08-10T15:52:02Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > No, not tradable. OmniMegaCorp is SOL in that case (and probably wouldn’t exist in my society anyway) No OnmiMegaCorp and very little economic activity I think. It’s hard to see how the industrial revolution could have happened without people being able to trade land, or even move to a different area easily. Note that in the example, I can’t sell up _even if I want to_. I might not care where my fish shop is, and be quite happy to sell that land to OMC and move my shop elsewhere. All parties are happy with this transaction, but you’re saying it cannot take place. So it’s a system where we have less freedom, and we’re most likely dirt poor. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/453 "2013-08-10T15:54:45Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > So it’s a system where we have less freedom, and we’re most likely dirt poor. But equally dirt poor. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/454 "2013-08-10T17:44:00Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You’ve stated that if the farmer’s crop goes up in price because other farmers have a poor harvest, then he has made “unearned income”. > However you’re now saying (or at least implying) that if the crop goes up in price because of increased demand, that’s ok. > > The problem is those things are impossible to separate: the demand for my crop is a function of how difficult it is to grow it. > > If we were to follow your philosophy through, we’d have to conclude that the farmer both does and does not make unearned income. You’re right: market forces affect wages just like profits. Whether income is earned depends on whether it’s for work or for owning something. Weevils have nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > Does it help then if we just call making investment decisions _work_? I mean, if you’re happy to say that what we call work is arbitrary and doesn’t involve necessarily getting dirt under one’s fingernails, why don’t investments count? There’re several reasons that doesn’t work. One is that in the ordinary course of things people don’t have that much trouble distinguishing between income from work, and income from ownership. The tax code makes that distinction, and people seem to be able to handle it. There is, of course, an overlap. Some people get income from more than one source: for example, if they manage their own businesses. I mean, ultimately it is a definitional thing, and if you choose to ignore the definition, or to say there is no difference, I probably can’t convince you. I will say, if we were talking in another context, and I asked what interest or dividends were for, you’d say they were for owning stock or money. Not for deciding to own money or stocks. Also, I didn’t say work was arbitrary, I said it can be tricky. For example, if I play basketball, it’s not work (it’s barely even basketball). When Kobe Bryan plays, it is. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/455 "2013-08-10T18:08:19Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You’re right: market forces affect wages just like profits. Whether income is earned depends on whether it’s for work or for owning something. Weevils have nothing to do with it. Doesn’t address at all the post you’re supposedly replying to, or make any attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. > [@](#): > > There’re several reasons that doesn’t work. One is that in the ordinary course of things people don’t have that much trouble distinguishing between income from work, and income from ownership. The tax code makes that distinction, and people seem to be able to handle it. > … > I mean, ultimately it is a definitional thing, and if you choose to ignore the definition, or to say there is no difference, I probably can’t convince you. However, both things can be collectively called _earnings_. So there is at least one person here who cannot “handle” the terminology. > [@](#): > > I will say, if we were talking in another context, and I asked what interest or dividends were for, you’d say they were for owning stock or money. Not for deciding to own money or stocks. Yes, in different contexts I might phrase things differently. There’s no sleight of hand however, as ownership and the decision to become (or continue to be) an owner are fundamentally inseparable. > [@](#): > > Also, I didn’t say work was arbitrary, I said it can be tricky. For example, if I play basketball, it’s not work (it’s barely even basketball). When Kobe Bryan plays, it is. _Can be_ tricky, or has to be tricky? I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying if I paid you to play basketball for me, you wouldn’t have earned it? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/456 "2013-08-10T18:35:15Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > I find it interesting that this is the post of mine you decide to rebut. > > If you indeed have people who agree to pay rent to live on your land? Yes. That’s the value of your contribution. If you try charging a higher rent than your contribution of “giving people a place to live”, people will just leave your country for another. This would be the “supply and demand” that I referenced in post # 372 on page 8. I’m not sure what you mean by the “agree” part of it. I mean, if it’s my land, and people live there, they have to pay me, right? And as far as leaving my land, why should I allow it? They’d have to travel _through_ my land in order to get out of it, right? Why should I allow that? That would be trespassing. Wouldn’t I be better off negotiating for, say, 100% of everything they have, plus 100% they ever will have, plus all their wives and children? Isn’t that the true value of my contribution? > [@](#): > > Absolutely. Now even moreso than in scenario 1. In scenario 1, people have already agreed to pay you on a business level and received the goods/services accordingly. In this case, the service is housing. Now they get to benefit from all the ancillary benefits of residing in a fully funded nation without having to actually fund any of it. They get an army to protect them. But aren’t they, themselves, the army that protects them? > [@](#): > > They get roads, schools, a welfare system, courts of law, police, parks for free. But aren’t they themselves the teachers, and the cops, and the engineers, and literally every other person does any work at all, that provides any benefit for anyone? > [@](#): > > Without your generous 100% tax contribution, they would have to pay out of pocket to buy a gun to protect themselves, pay a paving company to put down asphalt, be forced to pay for private school, be shit out of luck if they can’t find a job, live in constant fear of crimes and misdemeanors, buy extra acreage for natural recreation, etc. But thankfully they don’t have to. They signed the lease, agreeing to purchase “kit” (the right to live on your land) and got the “kaboodle” (everything government pays for) for free! Where’s your banana republic exactly? I’d like to apply for a visa post haste. Seriously? You’d rather pay 50% of your income in rent, than 25% of your income in taxes? > [@](#): > > 1 - They’re much worse off. Now they have to pay taxes or suffer the consequences. > 2 - You’re much worse off. Now you have no place to live and will have to pay the landlord of Lost island and your assets instead of being 50 billion jillion and counting, is 50 billion jillion, constantly less your monthly rent and living expenses. The nation’s better off, because they no longer have to support Mr. Galt, who was (before he left for Galt island) consuming half of all the nation’s income. Mr. Galt is worse off, because he no longer has anyone to provide for him. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/457 "2013-08-10T19:09:14Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by the “agree” part of it. I mean, if it’s my land, and people live there, they have to pay me, right? And as far as leaving my land, why should I allow it? They’d have to travel _through_ my land in order to get out of it, right? For the win. Thread over. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/458 "2013-08-10T21:04:47Z")
> [@Bremidon](#): > > Leaving aside the rather absurd implication that you need millions to buy an apartment building, you do not need 200 years to save a million bucks. If you can save 5000 a year and get 10% growth (the average growth rate of the stock market over any 10 year period), you’ll have over 1,5 million after 35 years. > > If playing the stocks is too risky for you (what are you doing investing in real estate then?), you do not even have to save up first to buy a building. There’s a thing called a bank, and the bank will lend you money. If you have made a good investment, you will make more money than you have to pay the bank for performing this service. > > If you do not like banks, you can also use a technique known as “Partners.” Partners are people who will share resources in order to make larger investments than would otherwise be possible. > > If you do not have enough friends, then you can try to go with a technique called “Incorporation” and sell shares to raise money. Well, this is sort of off-topic, but returns from stocks are not 10% per year, over any ten year period. In fact, returns, over the long term, can’t be greater than the growth of the economy as a whole. Since profits are _part of_ the economy, they can’t be greater than the whole thing. If the real growth rate of the economy is 2 or 3%, the real real growth rate of profits can’t more than that, over the long term. They can can take more than that, over short periods of time, by taking over a greater share from workers. But there’s a limit to how much profits can grow at the expense of workers. To put it differently: the absolute theoretical limit to the amount owners can take is everything. They can’t take more than 100%. But anyway, regardless of how easy you think it is to buy an apartment complex (by the way, how many do you own?), the fact is that for some people to be rich enough to own apartment buildings, others have to be poor enough to have to rent. For some people to be rich enough to hire others to build apartment buildings, others have to be poor enough to have to take the job of building the buildings. And on and on. The idea that everyone can be rich (if they just work hard enough, or save enough, or whatever) is ridiculous: some people must be poor, in order for others to be rich. Not everyone can be the tallest person in the room, not everyone can have the best seat in the house, and not everyone can do nothing while everyone else does all the work. > [@](#): > > It makes no difference to me. And apparently it makes no difference to you. Good. Then let’s list the ways someone can come by an apartment building. > > 1. He can build it. No debate where his contribution comes from here. > 2. He can buy it. No debate where is contribution comes from here. > 3. He can receive it as a present. Questionable contribution only if you dispute the legitimacy of gifts. > 4. He can inherit it. Really just a gift from a dead guy. Questionable contribution only if you dispute the legitimacy of inheritance. > > I do not question the legitimacy of either gifts or inheritance, so I am perfectly consistent when I say his investment in the building is his contribution. > Practically every single one of your posts has implicitely advocated relieving people of property that you feel would be better served if…actually, I have no idea what your solutions are, but judging from history, I’m pretty sure you would start by “giving things to The People.” And that equates to theft. > You were, in fact, for inheritance before you were against it. You haven’t been reading my posts, but there’s a lot of them, so I don’t really expect you to: my official position is that I’m 100% in favor of inheritance, whenever I’m the beneficiary. Whenever it’s someone else, I don’t really care one way or the other. I do have some ideas about addressing the problem, but it doesn’t really make sense to talk about how to fix it unless you think there’s a problem in the first place. My ideas involve things like increasing deficit spending, fiddling with tax rates, and monetizing the debt. Not theft. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/459 "2013-08-10T21:52:24Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > the fact is that for some people to be rich enough to own apartment buildings, others have to be poor enough to have to rent. This is not a fact, it’s not even close to true, and once again shows just how little you understand about what’s going on. Renting is not about being poor. I realize nothing is going to get through to you, but for anyone on the fence consider this _thought experiment:_ Let’s say you fly some where to go on vacation. While there you need a car and a place to live. Would you ever consider buying a condo, and buying a car, for the week while you need it, and then trying to sell it before you go\*? Of course not, that would be absurd and unnecessary. Instead, you rent. Not because you’re poor, but because buying then selling (ie owning) would be really fucking stupid. So you are willing to pay a premium for the ability to “own” a car and a condo for a week. That premium is **LinusK** keeps calling profit. I am certainly not worse off by having to pay that premium, in fact I am very thankful that there are _owners_ who are willing to let me use their property/possessions for a short period of time. Here is one more thought experiment: In 2005 my wife and I were renting a condo, paying rent so that the owner could have profit. Every couple of months the owner would offer to sell us the condo at what we thought was an hilarious price. Meanwhile, our friends were caught up in the hype that was the 2005 housing market and eagerly bought 3 bedroom condos, and 4 bedroom townhouses. Does anyone remember what happened in 2008? Those that owned suddenly woke up to realize that their property was worthless. Meanwhile those that rented giggled, then offered them a fraction of what they paid just 3 years earlier. To add insult to injury, some of us even got $8000 from the government for doing that. I didn’t rent because I was poor, I rented because owning carries risk. If you don’t understand that statement it’s no surprise you’d think profits are a tax on labour. \*I looked into doing this in Australia and you need to be there a pretty long time before it works out in your favour. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/460 "2013-08-10T22:19:59Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > This is not a fact, it’s not even close to true, and once again shows just how little you understand about what’s going on. Renting is not about being poor. I realize nothing is going to get through to you, but for anyone on the fence consider this _thought experiment:_ > > Let’s say you fly some where to go on vacation. While there you need a car and a place to live. Would you ever consider buying a condo, and buying a car, for the week while you need it, and then trying to sell it before you go\*? > > Of course not, that would be absurd and unnecessary. Instead, you rent. Not because you’re poor, but because buying then selling (ie owning) would be really fucking stupid. So you are willing to pay a premium for the ability to “own” a car and a condo for a week. That premium is **LinusK** keeps calling profit. I am certainly not worse off by having to pay that premium, in fact I am very thankful that there are _owners_ who are willing to let me use their property/possessions for a short period of time. > > Here is one more thought experiment: In 2005 my wife and I were renting a condo, paying rent so that the owner could have profit. Every couple of months the owner would offer to sell us the condo at what we thought was an hilarious price. Meanwhile, our friends were caught up in the hype that was the 2005 housing market and eagerly bought 3 bedroom condos, and 4 bedroom townhouses. > > Does anyone remember what happened in 2008? Those that owned suddenly woke up to realize that their property was worthless. Meanwhile those that rented giggled, then offered them a fraction of what they paid just 3 years earlier. To add insult to injury, some of us even got $8000 from the government for doing that. > > I didn’t rent because I was poor, I rented because owning carries risk. If you don’t understand that statement it’s no surprise you’d think profits are a tax on labour. > > \*I looked into doing this in Australia and you need to be there a pretty long time before it works out in your favour. If renting has nothing to do with being poor, why do you suppose poor people generally rent and wealthy people generally own homes? Coincidence? Or CONSPIRACY??? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283.md?page=24)