Profit is theft.

Post Reply New Topic

Mathematically speaking, the only way for a corporation to make a profit from an employee is if they pay that employee less than the value they generate for that company. If an employee isn't generating more value than what they're being compensated, that employee would have been laid off a long time ago. By virtue of this fact, all profits corporations make are effectively stolen from their employees, and thus are fair game for taxation. You don't have a "right" to keep something that you stole. If CEOs and investors making less than the value their companies generate due to taxation is unfair, then employees making less than the value they generate by working is also unfair by the same logic. The only businesses that have a "right" to their profits are sole proprietorships that have no employees other than the owner or cooperatives where all the employees are effectively owners, ensuring that they are fairly compensated for their work.

That's just my opinion. Feel free to discuss.

Classical theory of surplus value.

Just an addendum to the OP: I've also realized that the idea that corporate CEOs are compensated more generously because they have to take risks is complete bullcrap. By definition, corporations are risk-free, because all the risk of a corporation is outsourced to its shareholders. Plus if a company starts failing, it's the employees that lose their jobs and livelihoods, not the executives. So what exactly are they doing that warrants being paid eight-figure salaries? Delegating work to others can't be that hard, especially considering that you're not the one who suffers if you mess up.

effectively employees are entering into an enterprise bargain with their employer where they are contractually agreeing to undertake certain tasks for a reward (money, job title etc.) in exchange the employer is able to access their labour. Since the dawn of time when labour strikes a bargain with an employer, the arrangement is by it's very nature unequal but both parties gain some level of mutual benefit, but the benefit for the employer > employee (always).

In order equal benefit is derived then this is no longer employment, it's a partnership. In a partnership profit or dividends are shared. For example shareholders of publicly listed companies derive a share of profits called dividends.

But in the context of employees, labour is auctioned on the free market and we are willing participants in such exchanges. In such a free market employers who choose to be more fair and pay employees a larger share of the profit risk reducing funds to expand and hire more staff, compete against rivals and/or funds to finance a particular lifestyle they have grown accustomed to. Risk can reduce sustainability and put existing jobs in peril.

Saying profit is theft is a moot point while we all happily participate in the free market. Like saying meat is murder while enjoying a steak dinner.

The difference is people don't need to eat meat. People need to work though, and employers take advantage of the fact that selling your labor is a necessity and not a luxury by grossly underpaying people who will work for them no matter what because they don't have a choice, beyond quitting their jobs and risking homelessness. The fact that most people are trapped in their current jobs means employers can pretty much pay them as little as they want.

Free market logic is if you feel you are being underpaid then either a) negotiate individually or through worker unions or b) terminate your contract and seek more favourable employment conditions with another employer.

Not possible if the job market sucks, and if corporations are allowed to engage in union-busting activity. The system is set up so that there are always more people seeking jobs than there are job openings, so it's not like people can just quit their jobs and work somewhere else, especially when every other company is treating their employees like garbage too.

Since the 1900s companies form cartels who conspired with banks and governments to fix pay labour at a level favourable to the cartels. Since that time workers unions have fought to improve wages through strikes and governments agree with voters to regulate minimum wages against cost of living indices.

while cartels and robber barons (banks) no longer force poverty level wages, they do continue to fix wages at the most favourable level to increase profit. Companies justify maintaining this system by donating to governments, paying taxes and promise of trickle down economics where "healthy competition" leads to better productivity and higher profits that trickle back to workers in higher wages and more jobs. And more jobs is good for the economy.

Profit is Theft and All Life is Travesty.

Profit is what keeps business owners and investors motivated.

I know right? Without profit, there wouldn't be a place for you to work.

And taxes are what fund social programs. What's your point?

Or you could work for a cooperative where each employee is an owner, meaning that all profits go to the employees. That is a thing. The only downside is it doesn't allow the CEO and investors to get absurdly wealthy and have more money than they could possibly find a use for, because the money goes to the people who do the actual work.

BTW, didn't you say in another thread that you're a trust fund kid with a multi-million-dollar inheritance? I don't think you're qualified to opine on economic issues, since you've never had to deal with actual scarcity, and everything you say on the matter is coming from a place of privilege.

Last edited by EmpireHonda on 23 Dec 2025, 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Co-ops are well and good for small things like local markets or something along those lines. They would not be able to succeed for any kind of major business.

Okay, care to provide some supporting arguments as to why that would be? Because so far you've just made a statement with nothing backing it up.