@zahlanzi saidWhy does Zahlanzi always sweat it about successful people. Let’s say I make $75k, Zahlanzi…and a guy over on Maple St makes $2.1M.
that's an indictment on the wealth gap between the 1% an the rest. That with all the tax loopholes, tax evasion, low tax rates for the rich, they still make so much more bloody money.
Who the fuk cares that they pay 50% of all taxes. If, grossly exaggerating for your feeble mind, 100 dollars is the entirety of the taxes collected in a country and the rich pay 99% of it is ...[text shortened]... xes the rich pay to justify the tax rates for billionaires. It saves us time labeling them as idiots
We would all like an honest comment about why this is your concern, and what you think should be done about it. This is not a difficult question. Notice that I had a great question about two waitresses, one of whom has more financial obligations than another. Should the business owner pay each one the same, or give more money, a living wage, to the person with more obligations? Why can’t you fellas answer questions?
@averagejoe1 saidHow do we pdecide who are the truly homeless, and not freeloading losers who won’t work?
Nobody is buying this, Mr Pollyanna. What stands out is your several homeless references. If we did it your way, we would have to identify who qualifies as homeless.
Tell us how we, our government, would do that.....keeping in mind that we are not a socialist state. And could you lose the anger, please? It is Valentine's Day .
Why wont libs answer this question ?
@averagejoe1 saidI thought we established you don't understand numbers and you shouldn't hurt yourself handling them anymore
Why does Zahlanzi always sweat it about successful people. Let’s say I make $75k, Zahlanzi…and a guy over on Maple St makes $2.1M.
We would all like an honest comment about why this is your concern, and what you think should be done about it. This is not a difficult question. Notice that I had a great question about two waitresses, one of whom has more financial obli ...[text shortened]... re money, a living wage, to the person with more obligations? Why can’t you fellas answer questions?
"We would all like an honest comment about why this is your concern"
The guy making 75k might have to decide that only one of his kids is going to college.
The guy making 2 million might have a great idea for a business investment but can't go through with it because the guy making 2 billion bought politicians and made laws to favour him.
The guy making 20k might have to decide between getting evicted from his apartment and buying insulin so he doesn't die.
That's why it's everyone's business when people don't pay their fair share.
"Should the business owner pay each one the same, or give more money, a living wage, to the person with more obligations?"
Another of your dumb hypotheticals.
Each should be paid at the minimum whatever the country they are living in is capable of to have as good of a life as possible. The US has decided the bare minimum a person's hour of labor is 7.25 dollars. With that you can't rent an apartment anywhere in the US. With that you can't afford to go see a the doctor. With that you can barely eat and you certainly can't feed your family so you can't afford any free time so you definitely can't learn a new skill and find a better job because you need 2 starvation wage to not starve.
Now hurry up and vomit that tired clichee of "well you're not supposed to flip burgers as an adult" (again) so i can mock your stupidity again.
@zahlanzi saidThe question was about a 'living wage'. It is a simple question. If a liberal wants a living wage to be paid to the waitresses who all have different needs, (some simply have more expenses than others) how is this wage arrived at. Does he actually pay them "according to their needs'? Thus, pays each employee a diff wage doing the same job?
I thought we established you don't understand numbers and you shouldn't hurt yourself handling them anymore
"We would all like an honest comment about why this is your concern"
The guy making 75k might have to decide that only one of his kids is going to college.
The guy making 2 million might have a great idea for a business investment but can't go through with it be ...[text shortened]... f "well you're not supposed to flip burgers as an adult" (again) so i can mock your stupidity again.
This is the question no one will answer.
Yes, I don't understand numbers, that is obviously why am asking you the question. I do not know the answer. Do you know the answer?
Your answer to the $75K guy thinking he 'has a right' to more of the money that has been earned by the $2M guy is not very thorough. I mean he is already paying more on the Federal formula, a larger percentage. Theoretically, if we are neighbors and I hit the lottery or get a huge bonus, say $20M, do you think you have a right to come over the fence and demand some of that money? No, you can't think that. So what is the difference in the man across town making $2.1M??????
Can you at least answer this one?
So to follow up, how much more should he pay in? What if it affects his business where he has to lay off some folks since he has less income?
And the big question that is never answered, what do you mean by "Fair Share"? An interesting phrase indeed.
@averagejoe1 saidI think that this is a very good question
How do we pdecide who are the truly homeless, and not freeloading losers who won’t work?
Why wont libs answer this question ?
16 Feb 23
@zahlanzi saidWhat you are suggesting reeks of socialism, which is not what we do here. You are saying govt should control the money of the $2M guy? That does not compute for me. And when does it stop. WHY do you fellas continue to connect us all up like we are all an equal flock of sheep, all sharing the same grass in the field. Sounds creepy to me. You know we are all different,,,right?
I thought we established you don't understand numbers and you shouldn't hurt yourself handling them anymore
"We would all like an honest comment about why this is your concern"
The guy making 75k might have to decide that only one of his kids is going to college.
The guy making 2 million might have a great idea for a business investment but can't go through with it be ...[text shortened]... f "well you're not supposed to flip burgers as an adult" (again) so i can mock your stupidity again.
Hey, I have a great idea about 'the homeless'. We get a responsible panel to vet every person out there without a home (that is not the same as a certified homeless person. Many losers don't have homes)
Those who are truly homeless are given ID Cards to qualify them for government care. See, I'm not a bad guy....our govt should help these people. Give them a new heart if they need it, and afford the same waivers for crime that govt will be giving to Hunter and Joe!!!
16 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidBecause they are stupid nonsensical questions of course employers cannot pay differential rates based on the employees financial commitments.
Why does Zahlanzi always sweat it about successful people. Let’s say I make $75k, Zahlanzi…and a guy over on Maple St makes $2.1M.
We would all like an honest comment about why this is your concern, and what you think should be done about it. This is not a difficult question. Notice that I had a great question about two waitresses, one of whom has more financial obli ...[text shortened]... re money, a living wage, to the person with more obligations? Why can’t you fellas answer questions?
You cannot use private employers as an analogy for the redistributive aspects of the tax system.
Try asking grown up pertinent questions and you might get grown up pertinent answers.
Honestly you people is soooo stooopid.
@kevcvs57 saidOK, I sincerely appreciate your recognizing the problem, which I have not been able to get through to anyone. They cannot indeed pay diff wages to people doing the same job. Thankyou. Why can not Zahlanzi or anyone simply say that instead of lecturing, blowing smoke, getting rattled?
Because they are stupid nonsensical questions of course employers cannot pay differential rates based on the employees financial commitments.
You cannot use private employers as an analogy for the redistributive aspects of the tax system.
Try asking grown up pertinent questions and you might get grown up pertinent answers.
Honestly you people is soooo stooopid.
So, end of my point is that you and I have realized that the phrase 'Living Wage' has no meaning, it cannot be applied in any circumstance of low level jobs.
There is no way to define, or have, a living wage. No lib will come back to me on this, because I am correct.🎓
Basically, as a rule, an employer pays the job, not the person. Remember, employees have choices! I love this country.
17 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 said"What you are suggesting reeks of socialism,"
What you are suggesting reeks of socialism, which is not what we do here. You are saying govt should control the money of the $2M guy? That does not compute for me. And when does it stop. WHY do you fellas continue to connect us all up like we are all an equal flock of sheep, all sharing the same grass in the field. Sounds creepy to me. You know we are all different ...[text shortened]... f they need it, and afford the same waivers for crime that govt will be giving to Hunter and Joe!!!
so? I am a socialist
"which is not what we do here"
Yeah you are. You're doing socialism for the rich. You allow "too big to fail" giants to exist, and when they do fail, you give them welfare. You give subsidies to various industries. You give tax cuts to the rich.
You don't believe in pure capitalism either.
"You are saying govt should control the money of the $2M guy?"
fair taxation is not "controlling the money" of someone.
"WHY do you fellas continue to connect us all up like we are all an equal flock of sheep, all sharing the same grass in the field. "
We live in a society. People donate their labour in exchange for compensation and with that compensation they buy necessities and luxuries. The social contract was supposed to be that one can be a millionaire but then they were supposed to contribute more towards the things one cannot buy on a salary. Meaning roads, police, healthcare, education, entertainment, etc.
The rich are dodging more and more of their responsibilities.
"And when does it stop. "
When there are no more people not having enough while others have too much.
It is immoral that any billionaire exists while even one person starves or that any person can't afford healthcare, or that any person has to sleep on the streets while million dollar houses are simply empty.
Americans could buy a house and support a moderate size family on one salary. Not a CEO salary but an assembly line job. Why? because the rich were taxed. THAT was the american dream. NOT one day becoming a billionaire. That is some idiotic nonsense like what would you do if one day you woke up with Superman's powers and almost as realistic.
" Those who are truly homeless are given ID Cards to qualify them for government care. See, I'm not a bad guy....our govt should help these people. Give them a new heart if they need it, and afford the same waivers for crime that govt will be giving to Hunter and Joe!!!"
Idiotic nonsense, i can't be bothered decyphering what the hell you mean by this.
@zahlanzi saidzahlooney bamboozle for brains, you speak big majic, where is this majical 'social contract' you speak of? Have you seen it? Is it defined? Or is it as I suspect majic fairey dust?
"What you are suggesting reeks of socialism,"
so? I am a socialist
"which is not what we do here"
Yeah you are. You're doing socialism for the rich. You allow "too big to fail" giants to exist, and when they do fail, you give them welfare. You give subsidies to various industries. You give tax cuts to the rich.
You don't believe in pure capitalism either.
"You ...[text shortened]... unter and Joe!!!"
Idiotic nonsense, i can't be bothered decyphering what the hell you mean by this.
17 Feb 23
@wajoma saidFine no social contract we will just burn the rich and take their stuff, we are not going to watch our children live on bread and water whilst the rich man gets an even bigger yacht, no social contract = no society = no laws = property rights, the poor will be cool with no social contract given how they’ve faired under it.
zahlooney bamboozle for brains, you speak big majic, where is this majical 'social contract' you speak of? Have you seen it? Is it defined? Or is it as I suspect majic fairey dust?
@kevcvs57 saidWe were pondering the nature of ZBFBs (zahlooney bamboozle for brains) majical fairey dust social contract powers.
Fine no social contract we will just burn the rich and take their stuff, we are not going to watch our children live on bread and water whilst the rich man gets an even bigger yacht, no social contract = no society = no laws = property rights, the poor will be cool with no social contract given how they’ve faired under it.
...and shazam we have kev jumping on here pretending he's a high wizard. Waving his 'wand' around (it looks like a wand only much much smaller)
edit: ...much much smaller than average 8^/
edi2t: ...much much smaller than below average wand size >8^0
17 Feb 23
@wajoma saidIs this a word from your sponsor while you dream up an actual response.
We were pondering the nature of ZBFBs (zahlooney bamboozle for brains) majical fairey dust social contract powers.
...and shazam we have kev jumping on here pretending he's a high wizard. Waving his 'wand' around (it looks like a wand only much much smaller)
Still not figured out what the social contract is then?
It’s basically the minimum the majority will accept before they reject the status quo, often resorting to violence.
King Charles Ist convinced himself there was no social contract until his neck was on the chopping block.