Why is profit the only incentive?
It’s not, but it’s by far the predominant one. True altruists encompass only 1–2% of the population, and those who are internally motivated by things other than profit perhaps another 10% or so.
Why would becoming an owner and having control of the process be incentive?
See above. The principles of extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation are pretty well understood in educational psychology.
What you’re really railing against is that the nature of the vast majority of the population isn’t like you. I can’t change that fact. Human beings have been buying low and selling high for all of recorded history, and likely all the way back to the hunter/gatherer days; perhaps we’ve actually bred altruism out of our natures in the Darwinian sense.
Like you, I can spend all sorts of time wishing human nature was different than it is. The difference between us is that I’ve learned not to fritter away too much time agonizing over things I can’t change.
And the owner receives a higher rate of compensation than the labourer. Even without profit, the owners still make out better than the worker would.
Possibly, but the entrepreneur puts money at risk in order to earn that “higher rate of compensation” (which is a very long way to avoid using the term “profit”, but whatever). They risk going broke whilst the employee does not.
Today there is no cap on their upside. The moment you cap the upside, you;ll start to get individuals deciding that putting their capital to risk isn’t worth it. That decision costs the government $$ in tax revenues and costs individuals their jobs. That sounds to me to be a losing exchange.
everyone faces the disadvantage of paying above value for goods and services because they must cover cost plus profit.
The only known way to establish value is by the amount of money people are willing to pay. Ergo, your statement is logically impossible as long as their is competition for goods and services.
As far as taxes, what good are they from a public entity perspective?
(Ayn Rand’s ears perk up in her coffin)
Well, now you have the rapt attention of every right-wing anarchist in the nation. :-)
But, more practically, taxes pay for the infrastructure required to manufacture goods and bring them to market. Without roads, farm produce rots in place. Without police, criminals steal product from the market. Without a fire department, manufacturing facilities burn.
I don’t see a change to corporate taxation as necessarily hurting tax revenues. Increasing the tax on the wealthiest members of a society, as their wealth is amassed on the work and contribution of that society, is an agreeable idea to me.
Well, now you’ve shifted from discussing “socialism” to discussing higher taxes on the rich. That’s all well and good, as long as you’re willing to accept the negative repercussions of higher taxes along with the additional revenue.
