In reply to GameboyRMH :
No employers?? Who owns the business? Who writes the checks?
Do you mean no managers?
I've owned several businesses that had no employees, and worked with hundreds of similar companies.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
No employers?? Who owns the business? Who writes the checks?
Do you mean no managers?
I've owned several businesses that had no employees, and worked with hundreds of similar companies.
A very large percentage of trade based businesses have no employees.
The company I work for does have employees, but they represent a very small percentage of the workforce. Somewhere between 1:50, and 1:100.
Duke said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
News at 10: The higher the density, the greater potential profit, at any part of the quality spectrum.
I don't think high-density high-end property is much of a thing, outside of perhaps the most expensive parts of the most expensive cities. High-end properties have fatter profit margins and that's what anyone involved in building or selling houses prefers. They also raise the values of nearby properties which is what ordinary homeowners were after.
I stand by my earlier statement: no property developer ever voted to limit their own development options, except possibly rare political cases.
And high-end properties only have fat profit margins if you can sell them.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
That's absolutely incorrect.
The most profitable builders I know build modest track houses.
Even larger residential companies like Dell Webb and Minto build cookie cutter homes. They sell amenities (at a premium), but their price point per unit is still lower than average homes locally.
DR Horton is the largest US builder. They closed 81,981 houses in 2021, with an average price of $340,323. That's less than the average new house cost in the US ($348K)
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
No employers?? Who owns the business? Who writes the checks?
Do you mean no managers?
I've owned several businesses that had no employees, and worked with hundreds of similar companies.
An employer could also be a manager, but may just be an owner. I'd say an employer is someone who both owns a business and pays at least one other person to work for the business. A worker who also owns the business in whole or part and doesn't pay anyone (other than co-owners, in the case of accountants) to work for the business is not an employer, just a worker.
By this definition, a business made entirely of employers would be missing all of its front-line workers and thus be entirely unable to operate, so we must be using different definitions. I think an all-employer business would be what I would call an all-worker business?
In reply to GameboyRMH :
You have a distorted view of what business owners do.
The vast majority of trades businesses are owned by people who are front line workers, whether they have employees or not.
You can't have employees without having employers.
SV reX said:You can't have employees without having employers.
True, but you can have workers without employers.
I'd say that you also can't have employers without employees.
How do you have workers without employers?
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Incorrect on employers without employees.
When a business owner makes the decision to become an employer, they have to file for an employer ID number. Once they have it, they can begin hiring employees. They are required to make regular employee tax filings (monthly or quarterly) as an employer.
If they lay off all their employees, they are still legally an employer. They still have to make the same employer tax filings with zero employees. (They can count themselves as an employee or not)
Th IRS assumes they still intend to employ people until they make it official they have ceased employing or doing business.
Steve_Jones said:So again, you don't want too take the "risky gamble for profit" but when others do, they don't deserve the payoff.
If you are not willing to risk it, don't bitch when you're poor and the guy that took the risk isn't. Pheller owns a house, he can borrow against it to get his commercial property portfolio started if he wanted to, vs making excuses on why he can't. That's what a lot of people do, and when it works, they're somehow the shiny happy person for doing it?
I didn't say I don't want to risk it, I said I don't have it, it's not an opportunity I've been exposed to. If I had it maybe I would risk it. I do think that taking financial risk is massively overvalued. You can do it in your sleep (some people pay to do it for fun!) and other people generally have to do the work to make it pay off - such as employees at a business or people living near or on land you own. Or politicians restricting the supply of housing for an artificial value boost.
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Incorrect on employers without employees.
When a business owner makes the decision to become an employer, they have to file for an employer ID number. Once they have it, they can begin hiring employees. They are required to make regular employee tax filings (monthly or quarterly) as an employer.
If they lay off all their employees, they are still legally an employer. They still have to make the same employer tax filings with zero employees. (They can count themselves as an employee or not)
Th IRS assumes they still intend to employ people until they make it official they have ceased employing or doing business.
That makes sense from a legal perspective, but there is a bee that is legally a fish in California, personally I would still call it a bee...likewise I'd call an employer with no employees a "prospective employer" to be generous.
A worker with no employer can be self-employed as a full or part owner of the business.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
It's gotta be a language thing. You have owner(s) of the business, who might do all of the work without hiring anyone else. They are simply called owner(s). If they hire someone, those people are called employees, they are employed by the owners. You can have a business with no employees doing the work (the owners do) or a business where employees do (some) of the work. You can not have a business with employees, but no employers, as by definition, employees work for the employer. Workers (as in people doing the work) can be either employers (they have people below them) OR employees (they have people above them), or as you said "prospective employers" (they haven't hired anyone yet) I hope that makes sense.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
It's gotta be a language thing. You have owner(s) of the business, who might do all of the work without hiring anyone else. They are simply called owner(s). If they hire someone, those people are called employees, they are employed by the owners. You can have a business with no employees doing the work (the owners do) or a business where employees do (some) of the work. You can not have a business with employees, but no employers, as by definition, employees work for the employer. Workers (as in people doing the work) can be either employers (they have people below them) OR employees (they have people above them), or as you said "prospective employers" (they haven't hired anyone yet) I hope that makes sense.
I think I agree with all of that except for this:
Workers (as in people doing the work) can be either employers (they have people below them) OR employees (they have people above them)
I'd say an employer isn't just anyone who has people working below them on an org chart, an employer owns or at least has the most control of the money that all employee salaries are paid out of and so would have to be the owner of the company, and may not even be a single person.
Examples, I used to work in a government agency under an IT manager. The IT manager or even the head of the agency was not my employer, my employer was the government, same for everyone else at the agency.
Right now I work under a supervisor and a department manager and various other managers at a big publicly-traded company with a CEO at the top of the org chart. My employer is the owner of the company which is a group of many shareholders, same for everyone else at the whole big thing. If it were majority-owned by one person like Facebook, it would be a reasonable simplification to say that my employer was the majority-owner.
I once did a brief stint at a small company with two co-owners who also worked in management. The co-owners were my employers, same for everyone else except those two co-owners who were self-employed - in that case they were owners, employers, and workers all at the same time. If they hadn't hired anyone else and kept the company as a 2-man team they'd just be owners and workers.
My employer is a small corporation. The person who controls the money and pays me is the Controller. She is neither the owner nor my employer. She is a fellow employee, tasked with money management.
The owner of the corporation has the authority to override any of us, but doesn't (and shouldn't). I haven't seen him in 4 years (except at the company Christmas party).
When I am asked on a form to enter my employer, I write down "XYZ Corporation", not "Mr Bossman". He's not my employer. He doesn't have an employer ID, and my income doesn't show as an expense on his personal taxes.
Duke said:Nor does pheller show any signs of being anything but 100% earnest here
This is the most terrifying sentence in this thread.
He really is earnest. It's almost like he hasn't studied any history at all.
SV reX said:My employer is a small corporation. The person who controls the money and pays me is the Controller. She is neither the owner nor my employer. She is a fellow employee, tasked with money management.
The owner of the corporation has the authority to override any of us, but doesn't (and shouldn't). I haven't seen him in 4 years (except at the company Christmas party).
When I am asked on a form to enter my employer, I write down "XYZ Corporation", not "Mr Bossman". He's not my employer. He doesn't have an employer ID, and my income doesn't show as an expense on his personal taxes.
Correct, like you said, the Controller is a fellow employee. I am simply clarifying the statement "you can have workers but no employer" is false. Workers are either owners, or employees. The workers work for someone, either themselves, or a company that employs them.
Let's bypass the employer / employee sidebar and revisit pheller's response to my hypothetical empty lot.
He claimed that I should be taxed as if I had built a house on it, because I was denying its use to the community. It could have been generating property taxes and so I should pay them, regardless of whether I actually made those improvements or not.
I am a competent architect. I make my living and I pay my state, county, and city taxes.
Let's say I am also a world-class piano player, but I choose to only play for family and friends.
By pheller's thinking, I should be required to pay taxes as if I was a world famous concert pianist.
After all, I am "denying" society the opportunity to hear me play. I am "denying" the community the revenue I would have generated if I hadn't selfishly hoarded my talent.
pheller, how is this different from what you think should be done to my vacant lot?
You ready to stand up and start assigning jobs to people based on your view of the most efficient use of their talents? You ready to start issuing color-coded jumpsuits?
Toyman! said:Duke said:Nor does pheller show any signs of being anything but 100% earnest hereThis is the most terrifying sentence in this thread.
He really is earnest. It's almost like he hasn't studied any history at all.
He must have had a boner when the Supreme Court issued their decision on eminent domain.
Careful folks, we're treading dangerously close to name-calling & patio territory...
In reply to Toyman! :
I'd love it if the City of Denver had locked my property taxes, especially since they increased them 60% last year. Was that a ploy to drive out solo, private dental practice owners? LOL! Yeah, I don't think so. Taxes go up, as much as I find it distasteful. Sometimes its because property values go up, or tax rates go up or bond levies go up vs some nefarious plot....
Like everyone else, I disagree with pheller's assertation that you should tax the land as if a structure was on it. Let's start poking holes, what type of structure? Multi unit? How many units? Multi/mixed use? What commercial rate? What size house? What if it's just a commercial unit? How much is enough to get charged? Shall we extrapolate to what I do? Am I supposed to give free dental services to whomever walks thru my door? After all, that's my talent and I'm not offering it up to the community for all to use. Maybe I should be taxed at the same rate of what the highest producing dental office in town produces, because if they produce it, well, then I should be too, right?
At the end of the day, it's that person's land and they have the right to do with it as they please. It gets taxed as fallow land until something gets built on it. You don't like that? Well, you can buy the land and pay to have something built on it and then let the community use it.
In reply to docwyte :
So you are OK with forcing the elderly out of their homes when SS or retirement doesn't pay enough to pay their property tax?
pheller said:
Call me a [...] Geoliberatarian.
Somehow I missed this little tidbit.
I respectfully submit that you are the exact opposite of a "Geolibertarian".
In reply to Toyman! :
So we're supposed to subsidize people who can't afford home ownership anymore? Are you ok with rent control, because that's what you're proposing here. What about paying peoples mortgages for them too?
Property taxes go up as assessed values go up. A retiree will know that as they've most likely owned homes for decades and should've planned on that happening. So basically you're saying we need to step in and cover people who've planned poorly for their future.
You'll need to log in to post.
