It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Labor is a commodity, you trade it for a currency.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:47 PM
Labor is a commodity. You read this all the time when you investigate unions or production models. Labor is used as an expense on accounting principles. If I was running a business, labor is directly removed from my profit, hence it is a debit in the accountancy tables.

Now, think about this. If labor is a commodity, it is traded just like any other. Labor is given a certain debit in the books in a business.

Now, that I have shown you that labor is a commodity in the aspect of businesses books, I will now show you that it SHOULD NOT BE TAXED.

Labor that you as an individual create, is compensated by being given an EQUAL amount of another commodity-currency. You are recompensed an equal amount of compensation for the labor you perform.

Let me ask you a question, if a corporation or in other words a business is given equal value for something do they create a profit? Of course not. Will they have to pay a tax on that? Of course not.

So tell me, if you are given a completely EQUAL amount of compensation of currency for your labor, this DOES NOT CREATE a profit. So tell me, why do YOU pay an income tax?

Can you as an individual create a corporation and say that you are selling a commodity of labor for an equal amount of currency; hence no profit?

Welcome to my world of realization!

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:51 PM
Actually Labor and the tools employed to perform the labor are called Capital. But yeah, you have the basic idea correct.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

Well, I was using the accountants term not the economics of scale term.

Thanks for your comment.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Uh, you pay a laborer a fraction of what they produce, as compensation; that's how capitalism works -- you have property, owners, and laborers.

If I own a kitchen, dough, water, and yeast -- I'll "hire" a cook; the cook takes my ingredients and my kitchen and he bakes (lets say) 12 loafs of bread. For doing this, I'll give him 5 loafs (to do what he wants), and keep the rest (to do what I want with them).

Change loafs to USD, or gold coins, or whatever, and you have capitalism

The govt takes 2.5 of his loafs and 3.5 of my loafs. What's the problem?

On a side note, if you want lower taxes, a good place to start would be cutting the trillion dollars of foreign spending a year. Take a trillion dollars a year out of the budget, and viola, taxes go down.. Not rocket science, is it.

/edit to add: If somebody cooks me bread with my ingredients for only 4 loafs of compensation, I'll hire him instead; and if someone else comes along and does it for 3, I'll hire him instead; and if someone else..

Eventually you'll get to a point where you're hiring the poorest and most desperate people who live in the most decrepit conditions imaginable, and that kind of system is self perpetuating -- IE, when laborers compete against each other, it drives the cost of wages down -- they produce more for less pay. That's called increasing efficiency. When you pay them less for more work, you can either pass on the savings to the consumer, or pass on the savings to yourself (which, in the case of giving it to yourself, is called "maximizing profits.")

This is why, imo, unions serve a useful purpose, as do minimum wages. But what do I know -- I'm not an economist.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Kaytagg]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg

And also, I'd like to point out that it seems as people become poorer and live in worse conditions, they become even more humble and subservient.

More work means less time for them to just sit around and think about things, or learn new things, which means they become less educated, over time, than those who do less work (in general), which gives owners of capital (like warren buffet, who's work consists of reading books all day, analyzing the markets, and pondering new things) a large and disproportional advantage over those who are doing much more work (and usually at dick pay).

It's essentially a system designed to create slaves, imo, which seems to be what's happening. Capitalism also requires large market intervention in order for R&D to be viable, and this intervention comes in the form of government granted monopolies (IE, patents), which is very un-capitalistic. The government will also provide subsidies (IE, your tax dollars) for R&D grants to private and public institutions. Generally, this R&D comes at a loss to the taxpayer (IE, socialize the losses) and is eventually given a government backed monopoly (patent) in order to make it profitable to the institution developing it (IE, privatizing the gain).

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:37 PM
isn't this the whole foundation of capitalism.

the workforce (proletariat) is the capital of the bourgeois. they essentially make profit based off you labour.

your productivity is their currency.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:42 PM
Wow, thanks you last two posters????????

I have no idea what kaytagg was going on about. Got a loaf?

I was trying to point out in ANY system in work today, people that supply labor trade their labor(commodity) for a currency. This is an even trade. Now the governments of the world charge people a percentage of their labor as a tax.

YET, in the same circumstances in regards to corporations, THEY DO NOT.

Please address this issue, not some frelling offshoot that you want to address.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

First of all, how are you determining that it's an "even trade,"

second, corporations do pay taxes..

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:01 PM

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg

Alright I will try again.

A corporation is any entity. It even could be a single person. But in what I am talking about, let us say I created a corporation. I have a bunch of workers that I pay a certain amount of money over the year. That is called labor. Now I also have materials, taxes on property, depreciation on assets, overhead on the office etc etc etc. Now, when I do my accounting everything I am charged from LABOR to my French trip to the south of, are all expensed out.

Meaning, all items that cost me money are removed from my PROFIT or INCOME. THAN I pay taxes on the remaining.

Now, as an individual I get paid for a direct contract to give me currency for my labor.

Is there a profit made in this transaction?

That is all, that is it, that is the WHOLE kit and kabootle of my argument.

Do you get it yet?

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

You're asking "is there profit made from labor?"

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:33 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg

Yes, that is kind of what I am getting at.

What I am trying to say is, if I incorporated myself and used all of my personal expenses like food, habitation, health care, etc etc etc, I would have NO profit. Hence I would have to pay NOTHING in taxes.

But since I am an individual, someone that trades my LABOR for a commodity there is NO profit hence NO lawful reason to tax me.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Oh, you're saying if your life worked like an investment firm, then your goal would be to have no gains at the end of the day -- which means no taxes owed?

And you're saying that it's unfair that labor has no "intrinsic" set value to it, which means your labor is always producing a gain (in the eyes of the govt), and that your gain is always taxable?

I honestly don't see the problem here.. If you're asking whether or not you can call yourself a business, and write off food/water/housing/clothing, etc, then I think the IRS will disagree with how you define a business.. but I don't know, honestly.. I'm no expert on anything, and I'm not even sure if I understand your question.

Hope that helps

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:34 AM
What he is basically trying to say is that labor shouldn't be taxed because you are not getting fair wages, or compensated your full value. If you were able to keep all your money you would have more buying power. With more buying power you have more choices. More choices means more competition for corporations. So in effect the laborer actually controls the market because the laborers as a whole control the market.

Also along with that is that wages would keep up with inflation because laborers control the market and would dictate prices.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:52 AM

of course man????

for real....holy crap?

I am not being ignorant yet your sweat is measured....come on man???

The trick is too glory in your sweat and your blood...this is the glory of your labour.....

this is what angels long for....the salt of your labour!

Yet slow down and take this all in stride for who has the power the slave or the master?

[edit on 28-4-2010 by whiteraven]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:57 AM
The US has to get its defense budget from somewhere...

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:00 AM

Income Tax as we know it was established the same year as the Federal Reserve.

Our 'labor' or 'production' or the capital that it represents is the "federal guarantee."

Federal Reserve notes are worth money because their standard is the labor output to fulfill the note instead of the gold standard.

When a bank loans you money it's not actually giving you money, it's creating new money (money that doesn't exist, it is giving you x amount of buying power, you are promising to repay it, YOU are adding the money to the system through your repayment, or rather, through your labor).

It's pretty unfair, since you don't have the ability to give out loans in the same way the banks do (they don't actually need to have any money to loan you money).

Think about it this way man our system is just like communism except we get to choose our jobs and we are responsible (to an extent) to care for ourself. We are cattle that is allowed to sustain itself, our ranchers are the ruling class.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by sremmos

Banks lend you money.. you repay it + interest by creating excess money with the money they lend you..

The same thing happens when you hire somebody to work for you. If I hire 100 people to run a restaurant, those 100 people will generate MORE money, through their work, than what they will make in return.

How is the relationship between me and my restaurant workers any different from the banks relationship with its borrowers?

That's capitalism, baby.. It's definitely not communism... I don't think anybody explains capitalism that way, though; they just tell you you're suppose to love it because "it's the best," and everything else isn't feasible. Well, maybe that's true, maybe it's not -- but at least know what the # you're talking about.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by Kaytagg

The system evolves as we evolve.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:25 AM
Please stop causing trouble with the free range slaves.

They must work, and surrender half of that back, less they enjoy some true amount of freedom, and have time and leisure through it to think dangerous and foolish thoughts like these!

You are going to confuse them and give them bad ideas, and maybe even wonder about the 50% we aren't taking back, but making them pay for over priced goods to then sustain themselves in which we make obscene constantly higher and higher profits on, having to give them less and less for their labor.

If you keep at this they might even begin to question the usury we enslave them too, so that they can have some minimal luxuries and freedoms so we can take even more away from them in the way of interest, and keep them even more docile and working longer and harder at their jobs.

If you keep causing them to think I will have to tell Caesar, by the way, who taught you how to read!

Haven't you some work to do?

Trouble maker!

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in