----- Original Message -----
From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 5:22 AM
Subject: RE: Profit RE: World Attitude (was: Re: Down Under Attitude)
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Verzonden: Saturday, September 22, 2001 4:14 AM
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: Profit RE: World Attitude (was: Re: Down Under Attitude)
>
> > >This poses an interesting problem: should whoever rebuilds the WTC be
> > >paid only the real costs, or should he be allowed to make a profit?
> > >
> > >The former will go against the very principles of capitalism. The
> > >latter however would mean that someone would be making millions of
> > >dollars in profits because of (IOW: he would be profiting from) the
> > >deaths of several thousand innocent people...
> >
> > Its not interesting at all.
>
> Correction: it is not interesting to *you*. See below.
>
>
> > And yes, Jeroen, workers *do* earn a profit. If a worker would
> > happily take a job for $40,000/yr, but is offerred $50,000/yr, then
> > that worker has earned a $10,000 profit.
>
> That is not "profit" in the meaning in which it is normally used (and how
I
> used it). Profit is something you earn when you own a business, and your
> company's total income is higher than its total expenditure.
>
> (But then, this is not the first time your interpretation of a term
differs
> from the usual interpretation.)
>
> Does the IRS tax this employee in two parts -- income taxes over the first
> $40,000 and profit taxes over the remaining $10,000?
>
> Now lets say that said worker actually does get paid $40,000 while he
> *could* have gotten $50,000. By your logic, he has made a loss of $10,000.
> Will the IRS accept it when said worker fills out his tax form and lists
> those $10,000 as being tax-deductible?
>
Please, remind me to not consider you my accountant. First, missed profits,
are not losses. Losses are, as when my wife had a folk art business, where
the total expenses involved in a business exceed the total income.
>
> Do you mean that almost all companies, no matter how small they are, have
> issued stocks? Even that coffeeshop down the street, that only employs
three
> people? Wow.
>
I consult for a small ~8 employee company that issues stock. Virtually all
of the empoyees are part owners. They own stock. Two of us are just
consultants, so we don't own stock.
> (Under what name is their stock known at the New York Stock Exchange?)
>
What do you know about stocks? Without spending pages explaining things,
let me just say all corporations that issue stock do not issue public stock.
I could even form a corporation with just my family owning stock. A sole
propriatorship was better for my little business, but I didn't have to do it
that way.
Dan M.
