Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FatBack, May 10, 2023.
I'll have to take a pause, I need to do what I actually get paid for.
Thanks for a civil discussion.
Because at the time, those products had certain air chemicals in which the excise taxes went up, hence the prices went up, among other things. But as I recall, it was mostly hair products even though they were considered "valuable" by the company because they were some of the most expensive products in the personal section of the store.
It was probably white people stealing them to make black people look bad.
You have a peculiar debating style. Here's a radical thought. Anyone working a full time job to support themselves shouldn't need welfare. If they do, the company that employs them full time should get a bill from social services for the amount taxpayers had to fork over to keep their employee alive. Let's not get caught up in the minutia; let's generically agree that we shouldn't subsidize labor costs with tax dollars. Whether or not that means a 500 SF studio in a shitty neighborhood or some other bare bones minimum can be hashed out later. Try to understand the overall point. If you want to work and are working, you should be able to afford some sort of life without welfare.
I really don't care who allegedly stole them. But I do know at that time, the excise taxes for those hairspray products began skyrocketing.
What is 'peculiar' about asking questions?
From what you have posted here, people aren't responsible at all for their lives. I would prefer that people live up to their potential, but since the government likes to make people believe they aren't capable of doing so, we have assistance programs. According to the post I am quoting, employers should be responsible for making sure people have enough to live their lives without any demand for them to do better and improve their lives. Yeah, no.
Apparently your and my divide comes with the word responsibility. Some people are incapable of providing for themselves, there is no question about that. That's why we have assistance programs. Some people are not capable of moving past entry level wages, and that too is why we have assistance programs. But to hold an employer responsible for not paying 'living' wages, and not based on a person's skillset is a bit absurd. Why stop there? After all, one person's 'survival' isn't the same as another person's 'survival'.
And as I have brought up before, do some research about who earns 'just' MW.
That's a very long way of saying you support government funding wages for wealthy companies. The billionaires who own Walmart thank you for your charity.
I'm pretty sure anyone around here that has a full-time job can't qualify for food stamps because they're just overqualified.
In which case I think they are still eligible for $16 a month but no one's going to bother signing up for that
And I guess you still haven't figured out the labor has a specific value, and no one is owed more than their labor is worth.
Since you seem to be stuck on WalMart, I guess that means the low wage earners at Dollar General, the grocery baggers, the Uber Eats delivery person, the cashier at the convenience store and the agricultural worker aren't getting any type of assistance either. Thats wonderful news!
I have no idea what the monetary requirements are for assistance programs, but with the shortage of workers in the hospitality industry for one, pretty much everyone can be pulling overtime if they want it. There are some who will actively decline, because it would put them over the qualifying line.
But it's all WalMarts fault...
I don't agree with Bernie Sanders about much, but he is completely correct that our food stamps belong for those truly in need; not those who are already working full time. It's shameful. These multi billionaires can afford to pay the wages, but why should they, when so many like you are willing to hand over their hard earned money to subsidize their billionaire way of life?
About 70% of the 21 million federal aid beneficiaries worked full time, the report found.
“U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America,” Sanders said in a statement Wednesday evening. “It is time for the owners of Walmart, McDonald’s and other large corporations to get off of welfare and pay their workers a living wage.”
Overtime? As in more than 40 hours per week? Gasp! The inhumanity!
I’m being sarcastic of course!
Why do you assume employers are perfect?
You can survive just fine without optimized temperature. I just don't want you to freeze to death with no heater in the winter.
And social security should be need based. Anything beyond basic survival needs should only be provided by margin for error as discussed above. Then people still are motivated to work.
Government should be made more transparent and accountable. I would then rather rely on that than private profit seeking business or private charity (which could disappear at any time).
So long as it's cheaper to produce overseas and import why would private companies produce at home?
Where people can survive. There is no excuse to have people homeless or hungry in a rich first world nation. There should be a safety net for them.
Since you can't seem to see past your WalMart issue, and discoloring anything I've said with regard to people taking responsibility for themselves, I bid you a good day.
Please quote where I've said anything of the sort.
You can't, because I didn't. So more hot air with no substance.
As I've brought up before, the 'needs based' is not a defined line, and varies geographically and demographically, and may also include other affective situations.
OK, we agree on Social Security.
Of course government should be made more accountable and transparent. Good luck with that. Just as they won't be passing a bill that forces term limits or income limits adjusted for the median income of the country. The politiicans in DC are a wee bit self-protective.
The government continues to grow itself by 'administering' programs with an amazing inefficiency. For the $200 per month in the suggested UBI, they will increase taxes on each working person by roughly $210*, take the $10 and give back $200 to all people, working or not. Yeah, such a deal for those actually paying the tax, eh?
And there is. It's called assistance programs. And they exist for the very things that you have called 'survival' needs. Housing, food, utilities. Why would another program serve any better? Redundancy is the government's middle name though.
People working FULL TIME should not NEED assistance. This is a pretty new phenomenon, when a man working full time can't support a family. It used to be a man COULD work full time and support his family. It's only recently that wages got so low that employees now need TAX PAYERS to help them, since billionaires decided to stop paying a living wage.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
You always assume that employers never underpay employees, that they are paragons of virtue. And if an employee wants more its always his fault that he's not.
Of course people working full time shouldn't need assistance. What you are doing, however, is pointing fingers at the wrong 'people'.
Compare what was the style of living in the time you feel things were balanced. Compare it to now. Compare government intrusion into lives from then, until now. Compare laws existing then, and now. Tax (not just income) from then, and now. Government spending from then, and now. Now take it to the lowest common denominator, and there you will likely find the driving factors.
No, I don't 'always assume' anything. Employees themselves normally resolve the underpayment issue by leaving an employer who doesn't pay them fairly. And before you go off and say it's not so easy to do, when there is a primary imperative at stake, a way will be found.
If one were to go to their employer and say I do this, this and this, and I've improved this that and the other thing, I would like to discuss a raise, just how many employers won't even sit down and talk? Likely if an employer waves his hand and dismisses the subject, the employee would start job hunting. Why would an employer pay someone more for the same job with no improvements? That is what a raise is about, recompense for better production.
Thinking one should be paid more just because they show up for work is a mindset that causes the thinking you are defending.
And by the by, there are employers who break FLS every day, intentionally or not. Similar to the tax code, they are convoluted and have a dozen if/ands/buts. And those that do and get caught, pay for it in multiple ways.
Separate names with a comma.