Defining and Reevaluating the Concept of Income - Essay Example

Defining and Reevaluating the Concept of Income Defining and Reevaluating the Concept of Income Introduction The income is defined as a construct that is closely related with the exchange of services and products which helps the companies in terms of generating cash receipts (Korosec & Berman, 2006). The cash receipts generated as a result of exchange of goods and services are called revenues in the language of accounting (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004). The traditional concept of income was associated with the need to do something in order to qualify for receiving income or revenues. In the modern times, the concept of income changes as others do as well. The income is generally identified as a construct that causes an entity’s money supply to increase for a specific period of time (Auger, Burke, Devinney, & Louviere, 2003). The means which help the organization in increasing cash reserves is called an asset whereas, the source that causes the money supply of the company to drain is known as expense or liability. The expense occurs when an organization has to pay money in order to keep its daily operations running and this particular head includes salaries of employees, utility bills and other office related short term costs. However, the liability is of two kinds. The first one is called short term liability that has to be paid within one year while the other one which is usually of a long term nature and has to be paid over the tenure of more than one year. The companies always attempt to keep its expenses and liabilities less than the value of income. The notion of income changed a great deal whereas, other business models emerged that included no tangible product but they started to sell services such as hotels, medical professionals and even psychologists. The revenues are generated against rendering services to the customer base in the industry (Badelt & Weiss, 1990). In the past times, services industry was not a common way of making a living but now it is considered the most lucrative one regarding its ability to help people in generating income. The professional lenders are also lending their money in order to obtain substantial level of return on the base amount. The capitalists are making money with the help of lending their financial resources to others and interest income is realized as a consequence. The traditional income’s definition is modified and now one does not have to do anything for anyone in order to make obscene amount of money (Greve & Salaff, 2003). The professional lenders have accumulated financial power by either inheriting the wealth or they managed to make money by hard working in the early years of their life. The point is simple that professional lenders do not do anything for their lenders and do not share business risks with lenders as well but make a fortune by lending money (Baron, 2007). The abovementioned type of income is not identified by traditional philosophy of income that requires oneself to have a social exchange in order to become qualified for receiving an income. The modern definition of income was made out of twisting and turning the original one in order to make interest income a legitimate type of revenue (Hemingway, 2005). The contemporary economists are of the view that when one lends money to another then he or she expose him or herself to inflation risks and against them he or she has to compensated. Additionally, the interest income is identified as a rent of lent money according to the modern financial literature (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). The income’s definition has modified in order to accommodate different and newest realities in the business world. The income is also generated by individuals and companies through receiving royalties and other similar fees. The sources of income diversified but the basic underlying concept remained similar in the recent years (Crisp & Tumer, 2007). The social exchange is the elemental notion that renders individuals and companies to qualify for receiving of money. The money is no doubt a conventional medium of exchange but other tangible things can also be used for the featured purpose (Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003). The whole idea is to help others in order to get helped. One has to scratch other’s back so that his or her’s can be scratched as well (Muntaner, 2013). The companies sell products and services in order to generate revenue while capitalists help businesses and individuals in the process of fulfilling financial needs in order to make an interest income (Edvardsson & Gruber, 2011). Based on above argument, it can be established that income is a result of effort or set of efforts that has been made in order to benefit a company, individual or set of individuals (Peredo & Mclean, 2006) and the receiving party of efforts then compensates the provider by either paying money or helping them in any other possible way. In an informal setting, the efforts are paid off by returning the favors. The simplistic human psyche impresses people to return good deeds with equally generous acts. The problem lies with legality of favors and therefore, it is legal duty of every individual to ensure that he or she should not suppress others’ rights in order to return the favor. The companies often identify lessening of expenses and production cost as income and this treatment is logical in nature as well because an income is an increase in financial reserves of an organization and as lessening of expenses and cost cause net level of financial resources to increase and that is why it is compulsory to treat lessening of costs and expenses as income (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). The lessening sales are treated and taken as a loss because when it happens potential income is lost and therefore, extremely committed businessmen treat lost sales opportunities as loss as well. The management is ofen defined as planned and calculated human behavior and the emphasis remains on human behavior and in the light of above statement it can be argued that accounting treatments of a business reflect the personality of financial managers and if they are traditional minded then they might not consider lost sales as loss because they are more concerned with actually closing the deals and others who are more committed towards enhancing sales performance may burst in reaction to finding out that the customers are going back empty handed. Fisher’s Theory of Income Fisher attempts to identify the interest as a legitimate means of generating income. The theory treats interest as an index of return rates which incorporate various risks of lending. The lenders hedge against inflation and default risks. The money is losing value literally every passing moment. The new dollars are printed in obscene amounts everyday and therefore, existing currency notes lose market demand and as a consequent, their price keeps on decreasing and in this way, the inflationary pressures are very real. Fisher as a liberal economist identifies interest as an encouraged method of maximizing one’s financial returns and because of this reason, the philosophy of Fisher allows the companies to treat interest income equivalent to other sources of income. Fisher’s thoughts are being used in order to logically defend the practice of predatory lending. The companies consider interest income as revenue while they treat payments in this regard as expense and the abovementioned treatment of interest is backed up by Fisher’s mindset. Fisher is of the view that income is generated when the company or an individual is compensated against their services or products sold. The theorist establishes that generation of income is dependent on the legitimate presence of social exchange in which both parties are helped in one way or another. The legitimization of interest as an income and expense occurred when Fisher argued that lenders help companies and individuals in terms of getting through rough times and therefore, they should be compensated with interest payments so that they should not suffer from adverse affects of inflationary pressures (Fisher & Montalto, 2011). Hicks’ Theory of Income Hicks’ on the other hand argued that human relations are based on the rule of reciprocity and therefore, social exchange should indeed occur in order to legitimize any business or corporate dealing. The traditional economist added that income is a byproduct of social exchange in which companies sells a product or service that helps the consumer in fulfilling his or her specific need or want and then, the organization must be compensated against its efforts which it made in order to entertain consumer’s request (Hicks, 1940). The income theory of Hicks does not consider interest as a legitimate means of generating income because the lender does not share business risks with companies and therefore, they do nothing substantial in order to help them and consequently does not qualify for receive compensation. The Hicks’ financial school of thought continued by saying that the interest is a root cause of increasing economic and social disparity in all parts of the world as it helps the capitalist in the process accumulating wealth without establishing viable social exchange. According to Hicks, the professional lending must be condemned because of its inability to form an understandable social exchange. Fisher’s Income Theory versus Hicks’ Income Theory and Accounting The Fisher’s income theory considers interest income as a legitimate one because lender is exposed to inflation risks and therefore, he or she qualifies to receive compensation and previous description of lending is complementary to the prevalent accounting system in the world which treats interest benefit as income and expense in this regard as liability of short term nature (Zou, 1994). However, the theory of Hicks considers interest as an unethical way of making money and therefore, recommends businesses to handle cash on current value basis. The philosophy of Hicks’ needs a turnaround to happen in the ranks of international finance because it wants to eliminate interest altogether. The chances of Hicks’ theory to become accepted as a norm in financial management is negligible to say the least given the current economic mindset of international economic arena. Hicks’ Income Theory and Marxism Marxism is the leading economic philosophy of the world and therefore, it is the very base of accounting cycle (Shaw, 2009). Marxism states that organization is an entity developed in order to serve capitalistic objectives and goals of making more money. The accounting principles urge companies to meet their payment obligations with debt on an immediate basis and that means that the accounting processing is also developed with the help of following Marxism. The Hicks’ income philosophy defies the underlying notions of economic system and because of this very reason, cannot be implemented in the world of Marxism where capitalistic agendas are top priority of all fiscal activities. Conclusion This paper reviewed and analyzed the basic theoretical foundations of the construct known as income. Both of the leading economic philosophers who worked on the subject matter collectively argued that income is a byproduct of a social exchange which ends up at a climax where all the parties involved are benefitted. Hicks furthered his work and arrived at a conclusion that identified interest as an unethical construct because according to him, it is a means of exploitation. He added that capitalistic hands do not make any substantial amount of effort in order to earn the interest and therefore, Hicks’ school of thought tends to eliminate interest from international financial system. The Hicks’ philosophy does not support presence of interest and therefore, cannot become a leading economic framework in the present times. Fisher on the other considered interest as an index that determines the level of return rate over a continuum of time periods and treated it as a legitimate means of moneymaking because according to him, investors expose themselves to inflation and default risks in the process of helping companies and individuals in terms of fulfilling their financial needs and thusly, qualify for receiving compensation in the form of interest. References Alvord, S. H., Brown, D., & Letts, C. W. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation An Exploratory Study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Vol 40 No.3, 260-282. Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T., & Louviere, J. 2003. What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features? Journal of Business Ethics Vol 42 No 3, 281-304. Badelt, C., & Weiss, P. 1990. Specialization, Product Differentiation and Ownership Structure in Personal Social Services: The Case of Nursery Schools. Kyklos Vol 43 No. 1, 69–89. Baron, D. P. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy Vol 16 No.3, 683–717. Crisp, R., & Tumer, R. 2007. Essential Social Psychology. Sage Publication, Auckland. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. 1975. Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review Vol 18 No.1, 122-136. Edvardsson, B., & Gruber, T. 2011. Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol 39 No. 2, 327-339. Fisher, P. J., & Montalto, C. P. 2011. Loss Aversion and Saving Behavior: Evidence from the 2007 U.S. Survey of Consumer Finances. Journal of Family and Economic Issues Vol 32 No.1, 4-14. Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. 2003. Social Networks and Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Vol 28 No.1, 1–22. Hemingway, C. A. 2005. Personal Values as A Catalyst for Corporate Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics Vol 60 No.3, 233-249. Hicks, J. R. 1940. The Valuation of the Social Income. Economica Vol 7 No.26, 105-124. Korosec, R. L., & Berman, E. M. 2006. Municipal Support for Social Entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review Vol 66 No.3, 448–462. Mort, G. S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. 2003. Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Vol 8 No.1, 76–88. Muntaner, C. 2013. Invited Commentary: On the Future of Social Epidemiology—A Case for Scientific Realism. American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 178 No. 6, 852-857. Peredo, A. M., & Mclean, M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business Vol 41 No.1, 56–65. Shaw, W. H. 2009. Marxism, Business Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics Vol 84 No. 4, 565-576. Zou, H. (1994). The spirit of capitalism’ and long-run growth. European Journal of Political Economy Vol 10 No.2, 279–293. Read More