Karmic Accounting

[dreamdancer 0]

Karmic Accounting is an idea to meld together Left and Right Libertarian strands
(i start with the question - is inherited wealth a source of earned or unearned income)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[quade 4]

Quote

Karmic Accounting is an idea to meld together Left and Right Libertarian strands (i start with the question - is inherited wealth a source of earned or unearned income)

I would think that at the very basic level it falls into unearned income; an individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as interest and dividends from investments, or income from rental property. Also called unearned revenue. opposite of earned income.

To argue otherwise seems foolish.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

"Karma" is just a PC word for Religion for those that want to believe in something extra, but can't admit it.
.
.
.
Inherited wealth may or may not be earned. I guess it depends on how hard you worked for your family prior to the time the old people died off. If I worked for the family business for 20-30 years, go to school for degrees targetted at running the business, and then inherited the business when the dad passes on. I'd be pretty upset at anyone saying I didn't earn that.
.
.
.
Wealth was earned (and taxed) by someone at some point, and since they earned it, they should decide what they do with it - spend it all, spend some and give the rest to the kids and grandkids, etc.

Except for pirates, and sock puppets, they are just GIVEN their gold.

...
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

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Karmic Accounting is an idea to meld together Left and Right Libertarian strands (i start with the question - is inherited wealth a source of earned or unearned income)

I would think that at the very basic level it falls into unearned income; an individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as interest and dividends from investments, or income from rental property. Also called unearned revenue. opposite of earned income.

To argue otherwise seems foolish.

it's definitely unearned. now that that is established we can move on

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

"Karma" is just a PC word for Religion for those that want to believe in something extra, but can't admit it.
.
.
.
Inherited wealth may or may not be earned. I guess it depends on how hard you worked for your family prior to the time the old people died off. If I worked for the family business for 20-30 years, go to school for degrees targetted at running the business, and then inherited the business when the dad passes on. I'd be pretty upset at anyone saying I didn't earn that.
.
.
.
Wealth was earned (and taxed) by someone at some point, and since they earned it, they should decide what they do with it - spend it all, spend some and give the rest to the kids and grandkids, etc.

Except for pirates, and sock puppets, they are just GIVEN their gold.

if you worked in the family business then presumably you would have been paid at the time.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it

Well, HE earned it, he's dead. So the next best thing is to let it stay with whoever HE wanted it to in the first place.

seriously, WTH does "back to those who earned it" even mean?

it sounds like a crappy system in any case - it sounds like it would discourage people from taking care of their families, from increasing a business and hiring more people...... etc etc

it would encourage people to sit on their hands and wait for the 'redistribution'. It would encourage others to celebrate the deaths of successful types or even proactively seek the deaths on successful people..... etc etc

really - what a concept - promote less than mediocrity, and discourage loyalty to family - right up the alley of certain political philosophies

...
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

[likearock 2]

Quote

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

So you would do away with all inheritance then? Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it

Well, HE earned it, he's dead. So the next best thing is to let it stay with whoever HE wanted it to in the first place.

seriously, WTH does "back to those who earned it" even mean?

it sounds like a crappy system in any case - it sounds like it would discourage people from taking care of their families, from increasing a business and hiring more people...... etc etc

it would encourage people to sit on their hands and wait for the 'redistribution'. It would encourage others to celebrate the deaths of successful types or even proactively seek the deaths on successful people..... etc etc

really - what a concept - promote less than mediocrity, and discourage loyalty to family - right up the alley of certain political philosophies

as i said this is an idea to fuse left and right libertarian strands. it allows those who want to be entrepreneurs and accumulate wealth for themselves to do so - within their lifetime. when they die rather than choosing who their wealth goes to (with the recipients getting the wealth unearned) it gets redistributed back to those who helped him create the wealth in the first place - in this case the workers he employed.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

So you would do away with all inheritance then? Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

this is an idea to replace 'unearned' with 'earned' inheritance. in this case the entrepreneur would have agreed a system of karmic accounting with his employees and his estate redistributed back to them.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

So you would do away with all inheritance then? Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

this is an idea to replace 'unearned' with 'earned' inheritance. in this case the entrepreneur would have agreed a system of karmic accounting with his employees and his estate redistributed back to them.

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

So you would do away with all inheritance then? Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

this is an idea to replace 'unearned' with 'earned' inheritance. in this case the entrepreneur would have agreed a system of karmic accounting with his employees and his estate redistributed back to them.

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

the private contractors would employ people so the redistribution principle can be carried to these workers.

also, on a small scale, say a homeowner were to employ a plumber or electrician for a day or two. in this case along with doing the work for whatever was the going rate of pay the plumber or electrician would get a 'karmic credit' that would pay out from the homeowners eventual estate.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,120]

>Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

That's easy; I did. I've been working lots of unpaid overtime to support this economy, and if anyone deserves it, I do.

Case closed.

[quade 4]

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

Which particular labor laws are you talking about that makes it illegal to hire private contractors in any possible business enterprise?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

So you would do away with all inheritance then? Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

this is an idea to replace 'unearned' with 'earned' inheritance. in this case the entrepreneur would have agreed a system of karmic accounting with his employees and his estate redistributed back to them.

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

the private contractors would employ people so the redistribution principle can be carried to these workers.

But the private contractors themselves are doing work as well. It's just that it's managerial work. Is it only the people who do physical work who are said to have "earned" this other income?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the basics of Karmic Accounting are as follows:

imagine a good old fashioned capitalist entrepreneur starts up a business, employs lots of people to work in his business, and then sells his business for a hefty profit. so far so good. now, unfortunately for him, the entrepreneur suddenly dies. karmic accounting is a financial system to redistribute his estate back to those who earned it rather than be allowed to accumulate, unearned to those who haven't.

So you would do away with all inheritance then? Who exactly decides who "earned" and who didn't?

this is an idea to replace 'unearned' with 'earned' inheritance. in this case the entrepreneur would have agreed a system of karmic accounting with his employees and his estate redistributed back to them.

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

the private contractors would employ people so the redistribution principle can be carried to these workers.

But the private contractors themselves are doing work as well. It's just that it's managerial work. Is it only the people who do physical work who are said to have "earned" this other income?

no, managerial work also counts in karmic accounting - but only for the real hours worked. so if a manager employs twelve workers fulltime they will all get an equal/one thirteenth karmic share.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

Which particular labor laws are you talking about that makes it illegal to hire private contractors in any possible business enterprise?

You might want to become familiar with this;
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

The way I see it, a large number of businesses, some of which we may interface with on a weekly basis, are probably in violation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

Which particular labor laws are you talking about that makes it illegal to hire private contractors in any possible business enterprise?

You might want to become familiar with this;
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

The way I see it, a large number of businesses, some of which we may interface with on a weekly basis, are probably in violation.

That merely specifies how you pay contractors as opposed to employees. Could you quote the section that says it is illegal for an employer to hire contractors, which was your original claim?

Hiring subcontractors is done all the time, especially in the construction business. Providing the proper tax laws are followed, how can you say it is illegal?

[quade 4]

Quote

Could you quote the section that says it is illegal for an employer to hire contractors, which was your original claim?

I never wrote that. You may want to go back and re-read exactly what I did write.

What I think you should understand is that a number of companies have tried to fire employees and then "contract" them back, doing the exact same jobs with the exact same hours as "independent contractors" in order to attempt to avoid paying things like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes.

I personally know a Fortune 100 company that did this with a large group of people. The workers involved went along with the scheme for a number of months too! They were too stupid to understand they were getting screwed because their weekly take home pay looked bigger.

Eventually a couple of them wised up, the company got its wrist slapped and people got classified back as employees.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Could you quote the section that says it is illegal for an employer to hire contractors, which was your original claim?

I never wrote that. You may want to go back and re-read exactly what I did write.

Is that why you just snipped out the relevant passage? Here it is again:

Quote

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

Now, what exactly was your objection to my statement?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Could you quote the section that says it is illegal for an employer to hire contractors, which was your original claim?

I never wrote that. You may want to go back and re-read exactly what I did write.

Is that why you just snipped out the relevant passage? Here it is again:

Quote

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

Now, what exactly was your objection to my statement?

I snip out passes because they get redundant and make posts unwieldy to read. It's the exact same reason I close up all the un-needed blank lines.

As to your post; if you build your business using "independent contractors" for specific projects and rotated people there would be no issue whatsoever. However, if your "independent contractors" were expected to maintain regular business hours for months or years at a time, doing their jobs under your supervision, yeah, there probably IS an issue.

Again, read some guidelines on the subject.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Could you quote the section that says it is illegal for an employer to hire contractors, which was your original claim?

I never wrote that. You may want to go back and re-read exactly what I did write.

Is that why you just snipped out the relevant passage? Here it is again:

Quote

Quote

What if the entrepreneur used private contractors rather than full time employees to do the bulk of the work. What happens then?

Seriously? He probably ought to be brought up on charges of violating labor laws. A lot of businesses try to get away with that and it's bullshit and illegal, but they have the "private contractors" by the balls. I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't tried it.

Now, what exactly was your objection to my statement?

I snip out passes because they get redundant and make posts unwieldy to read. It's the exact same reason I close up all the un-needed blank lines.

As to your post; if you build your business using "independent contractors" for specific projects and rotated people there would be no issue whatsoever. However, if your "independent contractors" were expected to maintain regular business hours for months or years at a time, doing their jobs under your supervision, yeah, there probably IS an issue.

Again, read some guidelines on the subject.

And once again, where are those guidelines?. A simple quote with source will do.

Seriously, I am not aware that there are any such general restrictions against using independent contractors for American businesses. But I'm willing to be persuaded that there are providing you show which particular section of the law substantiates it.

[quade 4]

Are you not seeing the links to follow on the page I linked?

Here are a few more:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
http://www.ftmn.com/Employee.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29681.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Are you not seeing the links to follow on the page I linked?

Here are a few more:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
http://www.ftmn.com/Employee.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29681.html

Anyone can run off a bunch of links. I asked for a quote that supported this position:

Quote

As to your post; if you build your business using "independent contractors" for specific projects and rotated people there would be no issue whatsoever. However, if your "independent contractors" were expected to maintain regular business hours for months or years at a time, doing their jobs under your supervision, yeah, there probably IS an issue.