Minimum Wage....Yeeeehaaaa!

kill3r7 said:
It was intentional. See my previous posts in this thread. I figured a preemptive response was better than the usual drivel that would follow from certain posters.

EDIT: All businesses start off with a CEO (boss). The individual who starts up a business is considered a boss/CEO but in order for any business to expand it has to rely on the backs of others...employees.
Click to expand...
Woosh, right over my head. That's what I get for scouring CAG during my lunch hour. :lol:

 
RedvsBlue said:
Cute, but as I have said before I'm not generalizing all CEOs as corrupt, greedy exploiters of their workers. I have said before, and I will say again, there are many CEOs who are decent people who realize that nurturing their company and taking care of those who work for them with a decent wages and benefits aren't mutually exclusive. The CEOs who pay substandard wages or whom condone/encourage situations such as Enron or the subprime loan crisis are the CEOs I'm speaking of. CEOs who ship jobs to china or India, who pollute the environment because it's cheaper manufacturing aren't doing anything to help their employees or the US economy, they're lining their pockets and those of their board through exploitation.
Click to expand...
To be fair, a CEO's only job is to improve the companies (shareholders) bottom line at all costs even if it means selling the company piece meal or converting it into a holding company. They are only beholden to the board, not the employees, not the government and most importantly not society at large as long as they don't break the law. You should/will know this when you take corporations which is a must if you plan to take the NY bar.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kill3r7 said:
To be fair, a CEO's only job is to improve the companies (shareholders) bottom line at all costs even if it means selling the company piece meal or converting it into a holding company. They are only beholden to the board, not the employees, not the government and most importantly not society at large as long as they don't break the law. You should/will know this when you take corporations which is a must if you plan to take the NY bar.
Click to expand...
I did take business associations actually and I do know what the role of a CEO is and to whom they owe their duties of care and loyalty. Once again though, the bare minimum is not what I am speaking of. There are plenty of CEOs who do the bare minimum and there are other CEOs who recognize that what is good for their company is also doing well for their employees.

Boards are cronyism at its finest, the CEO is supposed to serve at the board's direction but what often happens is the board merely defers to the CEO, unless of course the CEO royally fucks up the company and they are forced to finally step in. Boards are largely ceremonially this point and they rarely direct a CEO's actions. Most board members these days are outside directors who meet for their regularly scheduled board meetings every few months or so. They have little intimate knowledge of the corporation's actual functioning and affairs so they do little to actually direct the CEO.
 
ego,

The difference is, my question is relevant and intelligent.

Anyway, if you explain to me how some question from (6?) months ago was relevant to anything. And you promise if I answer your question you wont try to twist the entire thread exclusively to my answer and will answer mine?

Deal?

 
Msut77 said:
ego,

The difference is, my question is relevant and intelligent.

Anyway, if you explain to me how some question from (6?) months ago was relevant to anything. And you promise if I answer your question you wont try to twist the entire thread exclusively to my answer and will answer mine?

Deal?
Click to expand...
Can I get the same deal? I'll explain how my questions were relevant you seemed to ignore them, probably because you didn't know the answer to them.

 
Msutt, OK buddy, please just make your point. I just hope that it is not that we spend so very little on welfare when compared to other gov't expenses. I am for cutting the budgets of most federal agencies and programs thru accountability and efficiency. End corporate welfare. I also believe in fixing all the holes in a sinking boat, even the small ones. I do think that our welfare programs are creating bigger future problems by de-incentivizing work and creating generations of moochers. Here is another of your beloved anecdotes....

http://investmentwatchblog.com/welfare-queen-calls-radio-show-to-justify-her-benefits-addiction/

Please comment on Lucy for me. Thanks, Buddy! Talk with you soon...

 
egofed said:
Msutt, OK buddy, please just make your point. I just hope that it is not that we spend so very little on welfare when compared to other gov't expenses. I am for cutting the budgets of most federal agencies and programs thru accountability and efficiency. End corporate welfare. I also believe in fixing all the holes in a sinking boat, even the small ones. I do think that our welfare programs are creating bigger future problems by de-incentivizing work and creating generations of moochers. Here is another of your beloved anecdotes....

http://investmentwatchblog.com/welfare-queen-calls-radio-show-to-justify-her-benefits-addiction/

Please comment on Lucy for me. Thanks, Buddy! Talk with you soon...
Click to expand...
The majority of folks don't wake up in the morning saying I can't wait to be on welfare. Our society at large values hard work but more importantly we value a certain lifestyle, which is not sustainable on welfare. Ultimately this is why we work as hard as we do. Another factor to consider are immigrants, the impact they have had and continue to have on reinforcing our work ethic cannot be understated. They come here and sacrifice a lot to afford their kids a better lifestyle. Sure some will mooch of the system but you'll never be able to eliminate that. Just like you won't ever be able to patch up every nook and cranny since it is not financially feasible.

PS. I heard a pretty good joke the other day which makes for a fitting anecdote. A beautiful woman standing in the elevator asked her investment banker boyfriend what he would do with 10 million dollars. His response was, "I would wonder where the rest of my money went."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
So doling out tax payer money to people like Lucy is an example of accountability and efficiency? What lunacy.....
Click to expand...
What I mean to say is that saying "I am for sensible cuts through accountability and efficiency" is a fine thing to believe, but the smug, pretentious way that you convey this, like you're so. fucking. PRINCIPLED. for thinking so - that's what's hilarious.

You're just one giant straw man, saying "I want thinks to work well," in a defiant way, insanely thinking that people you disagree with politically wouldn't find common ground with your intellectually shallow, policy flimsy worldview. You managed to convince yourself that those you disagree with want the opposite of what you want, yet you phrase what you want in a way that makes it impossible to disagree with.

If I say "You know what would be nice? World peace!", that's fine. But I'm not putting myself above you or anyone else for thinking that. Why? BECAUSE EVERYONE WANTS WORLD fuckING PEACE (except for the military industrial complex). It's not noble to wish for nice things, so stop posing as if you're taking the hard and untreaded path. You not only want to have breakfast cereal for breakfast, you seem to think that you're principled for wanting it in the first place. Nope, and GFY. You're middle of the road, my friend.

 
UncleBob said:
So, now that the usual folks have, once again, managed to completely derail the thread into their own personal feces throwing kiddie pool...

CBO says 500,000 jobs will be lost and 900,000 people will benefit by raising minimum wage to $10.10. Is it worth it?
Click to expand...
Your numbers are slightly off. The 900k are people who will rise above the poverty line. I believe the report stated well over 10 million would see a wage increase.

They gave a pretty large margin of error on the job loss estimate.

I think it is worth it. Most of the increased wages will be spent on consumables and retail goods which will lead to more demand for minimum wage workers.

UncleBob said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay


Wake Up Walmart is one of the largest anti-Walmart groups. And they report that the average hourly Walmart employee makes more than the rate that Obama is wanting to raise minimum wage to. (as a side note, Walmart's health insurance offerings were 100% compliant with the ACA before it was implemented).

And yet, Walmart is constantly thrown out as some kind of horrible employer to work for. But those on the left praise Obama for wanting to raise minimum wage to such a low amount?

People can't get their opinions straight.
Click to expand...
I tried to find the source of their $11.25 claim and all I could find was this: http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/files/2013/08/walmart-wages-8-22-13-b.pdf

I think the $11.25 amount is from Wal-Mart's PR claim and not Wake Up Wal-Mart but Business Insider's link is broken.

 
mykevermin said:
What I mean to say is that saying "I am for sensible cuts through accountability and efficiency" is a fine thing to believe, but the smug, pretentious way that you convey this, like you're so. fucking. PRINCIPLED. for thinking so - that's what's hilarious.

You're just one giant straw man, saying "I want thinks to work well," in a defiant way, insanely thinking that people you disagree with politically wouldn't find common ground with your intellectually shallow, policy flimsy worldview. You managed to convince yourself that those you disagree with want the opposite of what you want, yet you phrase what you want in a way that makes it impossible to disagree with.

If I say "You know what would be nice? World peace!", that's fine. But I'm not putting myself above you or anyone else for thinking that. Why? BECAUSE EVERYONE WANTS WORLD fuckING PEACE (except for the military industrial complex). It's not noble to wish for nice things, so stop posing as if you're taking the hard and untreaded path. You not only want to have breakfast cereal for breakfast, you seem to think that you're principled for wanting it in the first place. Nope, and GFY. You're middle of the road, my friend.
Click to expand...
So I say "I want thinks to work well" (I THING I know what you meant ;)) and you assume that I think we can find no common ground? Please do not project your opinions on me. I indeed do think that people want efficiency and accountability in gov't. I also do think that there is a feasible way to take people like Lucy out of the system. We are a charitable and kind country, but if someone continually spits in your face while you help them and refuse to even try to work, then I say fuck em. Take their kids away if they become negligent due to lack of care. Do you want to argue if kids would be better off in foster or state care versus in the homes of generational poverty learning that tax money will always be there to care for them? I'm not here to be popular, I'm here to try and discuss ACTUAL solutions to problems that will affect change. I know you will call me heartless, etc. but I find the true cruelty is supporting a system that has kids being used as pawns by hypocritical politicians and lazy, moocher ass career welfare recipients.

And I don't eat cereal. Its full of sugar and carbs.....

"..... yet you phrase what you want in a way that makes it impossible to disagree with." Yet you still find a way. O:)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven said:
Your numbers are slightly off. The 900k are people who will rise above the poverty line. I believe the report stated well over 10 million would see a wage increase.

They gave a pretty large margin of error on the job loss estimate.

I think it is worth it. Most of the increased wages will be spent on consumables and retail goods which will lead to more demand for minimum wage workers.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong, but I thought the 500k number was on the low end of that margin of error. And that's jobs lost. If we assume that those jobs are for 4-people households (since that 4-person number is what folks always seem to use when they want to talk about the poverty level), that's 2 million people now with zero income - vs. the nearly 9 million people that get a wage increase that doesn't raise them above the poverty level?

I don't see how that's worth it.

Also - the jobs that go under... they're less likely to be jobs at major corporations who, likely, will be able to absorb the costs (or, at least, pass it on to the customers). No, the jobs lost will be at smaller business that will possibly see themselves close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UncleBob said:
I might be wrong, but I thought the 500k number was on the low end of that margin of error. And that's jobs lost. If we assume that those jobs are for 4-people households (since that 4-person number is what folks always seem to use when they want to talk about the poverty level), that's 2 million people now with zero income - vs. the nearly 9 million people that get a wage increase that doesn't raise them above the poverty level?

I don't see how that's worth it.

Also - the jobs that go under... they're less likely to be jobs at major corporations who, likely, will be able to absorb the costs (or, at least, pass it on to the customers). No, the jobs lost will be at smaller business that will possibly see themselves close.
Click to expand...
You're assuming one worker per household or that both workers (in a two income household) will lose their jobs. The spread was 0-1,000,000 jobs lost BTW. Lots of people will benefit from the increased minimum wage, not just those under the poverty line. I think the CBO calculated 16,000,000 workers' wages would increase and 900,000 would rise out of poverty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven said:
You're assuming one worker per household or that both workers (in a two income household) will lose their jobs. The spread was 0-1,000,000 jobs lost BTW. Lots of people will benefit from the increased minimum wage, not just those under the poverty line. I think the CBO calculated 16,000,000 workers' wages would increase and 900,000 would rise out of poverty.
Click to expand...
I used the "four people in a household with one income" as that's the thing some folks always seem to throw around when they talk about minimum wage jobs paying below the poverty level. As it stands now, if you have two minimum wage employees in a household of four working full time ($7.25*2*40*52), that household has an income of over $30,000, which is above the poverty level by about 25%.

So... raising the minimum wage to the proposed $10.10/hour will completely eliminate the income of anywhere between an estimated 0 and 4 million people (0-1 Million Jobs x 4 people per household.), will get 900,000 people out of poverty and won't be enough to get the other 16,000,000 out of poverty.
 
Aw... Myke responded to me.

The 500,000 number is what is being tossed about by most all major news sources, including, but not limited to, News Corp.

To claim (indrectly) that folks who use the 500,000 number are mindless slaves to FOX is exactly why we can't have nice conversations around here. I'm trying to talk anctual numbers and stats, you chime in with 'lolz faux newz' BS. You've tried to claim I'm a troll, not interested in conversation and always derail topics, yet, clear as day, it's you. Posting unrelated meme images (something DD would never *dare* to call you out on), attacking and insulting any member who dares to disagree with you and not bow down to your obvious 'to you but everyone' Superior Intelligence, and dragging topic after topic away from the intended conversation and steering it back to the Myke-favorite topic of "Myke makes himself the center of attention."

Congrats, man. You did it again.
 
UncleBob said:
I used the "four people in a household with one income" as that's the thing some folks always seem to throw around when they talk about minimum wage jobs paying below the poverty level. As it stands now, if you have two minimum wage employees in a household of four working full time ($7.25*2*40*52), that household has an income of over $30,000, which is above the poverty level by about 25%.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the reason you chose to use it, your estimate for this hypothetical family was still incorrect.

UncleBob said:
So... raising the minimum wage to the proposed $10.10/hour will completely eliminate the income of anywhere between an estimated 0 and 4 million people (0-1 Million Jobs x 4 people per household.), will get 900,000 people out of poverty and won't be enough to get the other 16,000,000 out of poverty.
Click to expand...
You are once again assuming that the possible 1 million losses will only affect 4 person households and affect both earners in said households. The other 16 million who stand to gain are not necessarily under the poverty line. The report estimates that families earning up to 5.99x the poverty threshold will see an increase in income.

The report was kind of middling. A majority of Americans want to see the minimum wage increase. I think it's a safe bet to raise it to match what it would have been if it were tied to inflation.

 
willardhaven said:
Regardless of the reason you chose to use it, your estimate for this hypothetical family was still incorrect.
Click to expand...
How so? What part of that math is incorrect?

You are once again assuming that the possible 1 million losses will only affect 4 person households and affect both earners in said households.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You'll see above where I said it would affect "anywhere between an estimated 0 and 4 million people" (hey, if such a crazy-broad estimate is okay for the CBO....).

The other 16 million who stand to gain are not necessarily under the poverty line. The report estimates that families earning up to 5.99x the poverty threshold will see an increase in income.
Click to expand...
Good point - but isn't the idea of raising minimum wage supposed to be to help lift people out of poverty?

The report was kind of middling. A majority of Americans want to see the minimum wage increase. I think it's a safe bet to raise it to match what it would have been if it were tied to inflation.
Click to expand...
Tying wages to inflation is a slippery slope.
If you increase wages every time the cost of producing goods goes up, you're going to constantly raise the cost of goods. *IF* we *must* have a minimum wage, I'd rather see it tied to the basic cost of living in some way.

As for what a majority of Americans want... that's not really a reason to support something. I'd say a majority of Americans would probably want a lot of crazy things with little to no understanding of what they're asking for...
 
UncleBob said:
How so? What part of that math is incorrect?

Not at all. You'll see above where I said it would affect "anywhere between an estimated 0 and 4 million people" (hey, if such a crazy-broad estimate is okay for the CBO....).
Click to expand...
UncleBob said:
So... raising the minimum wage to the proposed $10.10/hour will completely eliminate the income of anywhere between an estimated 0 and 4 million people (0-1 Million Jobs x 4 people per household.)
Click to expand...
You are making things needlessly hypothetical and complicated. You are assuming a very specific and unlikely outcome as per the estimates you are criticizing.

UncleBob said:
Good point - but isn't the idea of raising minimum wage supposed to be to help lift people out of poverty?
Click to expand...
I think it's a useful tool in raising the income of people who could really use it. It is not a panacea for poverty. Obviously there are a lot of people living in poverty who do not have jobs. This will not help the unemployed beyond the broader effects of giving $17 billion to tax payers.

UncleBob said:
Tying wages to inflation is a slippery slope.
If you increase wages every time the cost of producing goods goes up, you're going to constantly raise the cost of goods. *IF* we *must* have a minimum wage, I'd rather see it tied to the basic cost of living in some way.
Click to expand...
So you agree? If you are arguing that adjusting for inflation is insufficient I would generally agree. I think $10.00 or $10.10 is fine right now.

UncleBob said:
As for what a majority of Americans want... that's not really a reason to support something. I'd say a majority of Americans would probably want a lot of crazy things with little to no understanding of what they're asking for...
Click to expand...
It is not always a reason to support something, but in this case I think it is. There is a chance it could do no harm and do a lot of good. There is also a chance it will do some harm, but more good. Raising the minimum wage is a popular way to stimulate the economy and make people happy (which generally stimulates the economy).

Do you honestly think we would be better off with no minimum wage? Can you tell me why you believe that?

 
Would anyone be in support of significantly raising minimum wage (i.e. $5/hr+) at the expense of significantly cutting welfare benefits? or unemployment benefits?

 
GBAstar said:
Would anyone be in support of significantly raising minimum wage (i.e. $5/hr+) at the expense of significantly cutting welfare benefits? or unemployment benefits?
Click to expand...
Welfare benefits go mostly to single women with children. A minimum wage job with a higher minimum wage won't be enough. I realize there are some people out there that don't give a shit about other people's kids but to me it matters. Welfare for adults is limited to 5 years in your entire life and it's been like that since Clinton (in case you didn't hear about "Welfare Reform" in the 90's).

Anyone that's suggesting that children should live on the streets and/or be malnourished are not at all a part of the general culture in the US. Most democrats support Welfare and many republicans do as well. For libertarians, Welfare is considered far more efficient than increasing the minimum wage. For religious Republican's, they care dearly about children. You'd have a hard time pushing through those kinds of cuts.

 
Blaster man said:
Welfare benefits go mostly to single women with children. A minimum wage job with a higher minimum wage won't be enough. I realize there are some people out there that don't give a shit about other people's kids but to me it matters. Welfare for adults is limited to 5 years in your entire life and it's been like that since Clinton (in case you didn't hear about "Welfare Reform" in the 90's).

Anyone that's suggesting that children should live on the streets and/or be malnourished are not at all a part of the general culture in the US. Most democrats support Welfare and many republicans do as well. For libertarians, Welfare is considered far more efficient than increasing the minimum wage. For religious Republican's, they care dearly about children. You'd have a hard time pushing through those kinds of cuts.
Click to expand...
I believe you cherry picked your answer.... What about the "...unemployment benefits" part?

I see a lot of "I can't find a job in my field" garbage in regards to why people justify staying on unemployment for extended periods of time. Well if the bottom of the barrel jobs were paying $12+ an hour do you think they'd be tempted to find employment quicker?

If so don't you think the government could scale back on how much it budgets for unemployment benefits? I don't see any benefit (and I actually think it would be extremely counter productive) to raise minimum wage AND raise the amount that gets paid out for unemployment.

 
GBAstar said:
I believe you cherry picked your answer.... What about the "...unemployment benefits" part?

I see a lot of "I can't find a job in my field" garbage in regards to why people justify staying on unemployment for extended periods of time. Well if the bottom of the barrel jobs were paying $12+ an hour do you think they'd be tempted to find employment quicker?
Click to expand...
I don't think the average unemployed person needs to be tempted to dismount his/her $300 per week, year-long... I'm sorry, half-year long, high horse.

GBAstar said:
If so don't you think the government could scale back on how much it budgets for unemployment benefits?
Click to expand...
No.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GBAstar said:
I believe you cherry picked your answer.... What about the "...unemployment benefits" part?

I see a lot of "I can't find a job in my field" garbage in regards to why people justify staying on unemployment for extended periods of time. Well if the bottom of the barrel jobs were paying $12+ an hour do you think they'd be tempted to find employment quicker?

If so don't you think the government could scale back on how much it budgets for unemployment benefits? I don't see any benefit (and I actually think it would be extremely counter productive) to raise minimum wage AND raise the amount that gets paid out for unemployment.
Click to expand...
Lemme know when there isn't a surplus of labor so I can fully support your ideas.
 
willardhaven said:
I don't think the average unemployed person needs to be tempted to dismount his/her $300 per week, year-long... I'm sorry, half-year long, high horse.

No.
Click to expand...
Must be nice living on your side of the rainbow. $300 per week for essentially doing nothing (all you have to do is blow an interview or two a month) is certainly more tempting in my eyes then working two part time jobs at minimum wage.

If you live in a state that has four defined season like that in the Northeast it is very common for someone to make a killing for half the year (Fishing, Blueberry/potato/strawberry picking, snowplowing.. i.e. "Cash based industries") and then claim unemployment the other six months.

I'd love to live in a world where the only people that collect unemployment are those that live in markets where there are no jobs. Of course such areas don't exist.

 
GBAstar said:
Must be nice living on your side of the rainbow. $300 per week for essentially doing nothing (all you have to do is blow an interview or two a month) is certainly more tempting in my eyes then working two part time jobs at minimum wage.

If you live in a state that has four defined season like that in the Northeast it is very common for someone to make a killing for half the year (Fishing, Blueberry/potato/strawberry picking, snowplowing.. i.e. "Cash based industries") and then claim unemployment the other six months.

I'd love to live in a world where the only people that collect unemployment are those that live in markets where there are no jobs. Of course such areas don't exist.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't get $300 a week if you were a minimum wage worker. That's just an average.

Benefits last roughly half a year unless congress acts. Eventually you need to work again to reapply.

As for your epidemic of seasonal worker abuse, some states have limitations on eligibility for such cases. The fact that benefits are around half of what you earned during the previous two quarters is a pretty big incentive to keep working.

There are areas in which there are more applicants than jobs. Nobody said that there were no jobs.

I'm thinking you live on the side of the rainbow that doesn't have to worry about unemployment very often and that you don't care what happens to the people on the other side.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven said:
You wouldn't get $300 a week if you were a minimum wage worker. That's just an average.

Benefits last roughly half a year unless congress acts. Eventually you need to work again to reapply.

As for your epidemic of seasonal worker abuse, some states have limitations on eligibility for such cases. The fact that benefits are around half of what you earned during the previous two quarters is a pretty big incentive to keep working.

There are areas in which there are more applicants than jobs. Nobody said that there were no jobs.

I'm thinking you live on the side of the rainbow that doesn't have to worry about unemployment very often and that you don't care what happens to the people on the other side.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that your thinking is absurd if you believe that fiscal conservatives don't care about the unemployed. Unemployment insurance is taken out of your pay. It is not "free" money like so many other entitlement programs.....until it is extended to insane periods of time. 99 weeks? GTFOOH.....taxed entitlements taken by threat of force by the gov't are not charity. It is extortion. You should not get a warm fuzzy by thinking that you are helping one group by stealing from another. Put your personal money on the line. Donate your time and money to help those you wish, but do not presume that you have the right to force or infringe on others. Do you also think that our entitlement culture has helped or hindered our work ethic and beliefs in self reliance and personal responsibility? You think you know what is best to do with my money, even if you were correct, is it justified for you to take it without my consent? I see liberals argue that we have a shortage of unskilled jobs with a glut of unskilled, unemployed people that we should pay for, yet they don't seem to be in favor of somehow fixing this problem. Unemployment and entitlements equal control through votes. Why fix the problem and possibly lose our voter base? Keep them poor, reproducing, controlled, and angry at groups that possibly would fix the problem by creating jobs. The only problem with this strategy, other than destroying any work ethic and self responsibility, is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Its crazy to me how vehemently I am attacked when even mentioning a possible "true work for welfare" scenario. Let's just keep dishing out the money without fixing the underlying cultural problems. Great plan. The Republicans may just be just as corrupt and idiotic, but at least I feel that they are truly in favor of seeing citizens succeed and prosper.

 
egofed said:
..taxed entitlements taken by threat of force by the gov't are not charity...do not presume that you have the right to force or infringe on others. Do you also think that our entitlement culture has helped or hindered our work ethic and beliefs in self reliance and personal responsibility?
Click to expand...
No one cares, you cut and paste this stuff over and over and over.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
taxed entitlements taken by threat of force by the gov't are not charity.
Click to expand...
Lets go the dictionary:

char·i·ty

noun \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\

: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Lets go the dictionary:

char·i·ty

noun \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\


: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
Click to expand...
You honestly expect this will be read , you should know vs by now.

 
renique46 said:
You honestly expect this will be read , you should know vs by now.
Click to expand...
give
[giv]
verb (used with object), gave, giv·en, giv·ing.
1. to present voluntarily and without expecting compensation; bestow: to give a birthday present to someone.

voluntarily
vol·un·tar·y
[vol-uhn-ter-ee]
adjective
1. done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.

Taxes are an essential part of running any credible government entity, no doubt, but taxes are not something paid in by free choice and should not be confused with charity.
 
Thanks, Bob. The first definition I saw also had that magic word "voluntary". I am at work and the copy/paste touch functions suck or I would have replied with almost the same post. The key here is that the gov't takes from you by force that what you have earned, and disperses it to others that have not earned it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top