Is profit a transfer of wealth from consumers to business owners? Why don't people vote to stop it?

Keep you money. All of it.

Every cent. There's no law against it. Nobody is forcing you to make purchases.

You won't own anything, of course. Or eat if you live in a city.

Their profit is entirely up to you. Taxation, on the other hand, well, that's compulsory.

Why don't we vote to reduce and/or stop taxation? That would seem to be the involuntary movement of your wealth?

Transfer of wealth is not immoral.

Not to mention it's an exchange of wealth.

>he doesn't dirty the theatre to create new jobs

Shameful.

If you don't like the profit they are making then don't buy it. Then they'll be forced to cut the price.

That's how the free market works.

>but what if I can't buy it anywhere else

That's not a free market, that's a monopoly and then yes, something should be done.

I guarantee it.

Because it's an incentive to produce.

Although I do maybe have some feeling deep down inside that a company that utilizes the services of a nation, yet produces their goods in another nation to save on the cost of production but then in turn doesn't reduce their price but instead pockets the now larger difference is kind of scummy and could cause problems with resentment.

The grandfather of this style of business management even said it;

>Taylor knew that scientific management could only last if the workers benefited from the profit increases it generated. Taylor had developed a method for generating the increases, for the dual purposes of owner/manager profit and worker profit, realizing that the methods relied on both of those results in order to work correctly. But many owners and managers seized upon the methods thinking (wrongly) that the profits could be reserved solely or mostly for themselves and the system could endure indefinitely merely through force of authority.

Then again, we can always Open The Borders and import more pliable brown people to populate the countries with.

without profit nobody would be motivated to make new or improved products and services efficiently. it is a reward for being smart and creates jobs. the only people who would vote to stop profit are dumb single moms and unemployed white kids

Profit and losses are useful in a market economy to tell you where the scarce resources should be allocated, and how it should be used to to maximize efficiency.

-Thomas Sowell

>It would be a break-even sale.

Why would a business owner invest their time and money in a venture only to break even?

If you produce something and mark it up...you then trade with someone else, who also produced something... and marked it up. The only people who oppose this system are those who produce nothing, yet expect to be fed. Fuck you, I'll feed you hot lead at 3,000 feet per second.

...

We do vote often to reduce taxation, have you been sleeping for 30 years?

Also, eating is as compulsory as taxes.

What should be done?

Why is profit necessary as an incentive? Most workers work because they would become homeless if they don't. This motivates millions of workers to do amazing creative things for their bosses. Why can't we make business owners produce on pain of homelessness? Of course, we can have a vote to decide this, no need to be authoritarian.

How is zuckerberg getting $10 dollars off every person every year more efficient than people seeing each other in real?

It is only efficient in the sense that it produces profit. And you say profit is good because it is efficient. This is circular logic.

You're 16 years old

Break-even is a profit
everyone gets paid their wages

Grow your own food? Like your ancestors did for 280,000 years?

Your making a big deal out of a handful of people with a lot of money. Shall we call them the 1%?

Let's pretend that these 1% have exactly twice as much money as everyone else put together. So they have 50% of everything and we have 50% of everything.

Let's rise up as one and murder those 1%, seize their 50% of everything and add it to our own.

(a) how many times can we do this (the answer is once)
(b) are we substantially richer as a result of this transfer of wealth, set for life, even?

The answer to (b) is unsurprisingly "no". We'd have twice what was in our pockets/bank account right now. Once.

It's a matter of scale. People who talk shit about redistribution of wealth are blissfully unaware of just how many people there are, and how very little money there is in circulation.

Take George Soros' fortune of $25bn. Kill that interfeing anti-white muthafucking kike, and give out his bank account evenly to every American (est pop 320 million).

You each get $78.

Don't spend it all at once m8.

Reply to this post or your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

And you have not yet left your father's balls.

>circular logic

Nice use of buzzwords Comrade Sanders, did you just learn that? I think you might have African tier intelligence.

If a resource or enterprise produces profit it is a signal that it is efficient. Just because you say a sentence forwards once, then backwards once, it doesn't mean the logic is circular. Idiot.

ITT: the economically illiterate