> As your "wage" is far less then what you make in terms of value. This is complete nonsense given that there is no precise monetary value that can be attributed to the specific work you did. The closest you can get is the wage you are paid, and you're paid the wage regardless of whether or not the company actually makes money (or if it makes tons of money). If you want to be entitled to the total profits of a business, you need to actually own the business, which means you assume the risks if the business loses money. If I work for a company and get paid 50 grand or whatever, I get paid that 50 grand regardless of whether the company makes a million dollars that year, or loses a million dollars. Socialist retards only ever want to take full credit for the profits a company generates, but I've never heard one say the worker should owe money if the business goes into the red. If your labor "adds value" when the company is profitable, then it stands to reason that it "subtracts value" when the company loses money. So, do you actually agree that an owner should have direct financial responsibility for the business, or do you just want your cake and eat it too (parasite)?