251d
@earl-of-trumps saidFinally.
@wildgrass said - I can't write it enough. Amazon's netting $5 billion a quarter, and still asks taxpayers to pay for their employees to buy groceries. That's a broken system, but serious people don't propose workable solutions. Status quo or bust.
=-------------------
Well, I have a serious solution but the pols will never go for it, as it takes a bit of power fro ...[text shortened]...
Can you imagine a taxation system where only the rich pay taxes? You and I can but the Pols can't.
Thank you Earl. This is a real alternative solution.
Phew. I thought we were all losing it for a minute.
251d
@earl-of-trumps saidPlease, Earl. The poor are not being taxed. Take that back! Can you imagine the children on this thread getting ahold of THAT?!?
@wildgrass said - I can't write it enough. Amazon's netting $5 billion a quarter, and still asks taxpayers to pay for their employees to buy groceries. That's a broken system, but serious people don't propose workable solutions. Status quo or bust.
=-------------------
Well, I have a serious solution but the pols will never go for it, as it takes a bit of power fro ...[text shortened]...
Can you imagine a taxation system where only the rich pay taxes? You and I can but the Pols can't.
47.2 of us , including the poor, pay NO income tax.
Please.
251d
@wildgrass saidHow do you expect me and ShesueAnneto respond to post which has the phrase ‘safety net’ as an element. What is that?If there were no assistance programs and Amazon were not paying enough no one would work there. Amazon would have to adjust their rate to answer market demands, not arbitrary numbers pulled out of your butt or the sticky smelly politician butt.
Here you go again with fairy land logic. The minimum wage exists to prevent corporations from exploiting the safet ...[text shortened]... would be required to make that happen, resulting in anarchy.
Let me know when you rejoin reality.
251d
@earl-of-trumps saidYes, Earl really does say only rich should pay taxes.
@wildgrass said - I can't write it enough. Amazon's netting $5 billion a quarter, and still asks taxpayers to pay for their employees to buy groceries. That's a broken system, but serious people don't propose workable solutions. Status quo or bust.
=-------------------
Well, I have a serious solution but the pols will never go for it, as it takes a bit of power fro ...[text shortened]...
Can you imagine a taxation system where only the rich pay taxes? You and I can but the Pols can't.
Earl is something, there is a name for Earl. What is Earl?
251d
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidThe safety net is how we buy groceries for Amazon employees who are paid below what is required to live.
How do you expect me and ShesueAnneto respond to post which has the phrase ‘safety net’ as an element. What is that?
The fundamental question here is whether we the taxpayer should buy their groceries or if they should buy their own dang groceries from their Amazon paycheck.
251d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidYou're going in circles, I can't write this enough, if there were no safety net people couldn't afford to work for Amazon. it's precisely the so called safety net that is making it possible for Amazon to pay low wages. This isn't which came first, chicken or the egg, this is goobermint started handing out money the market then responded to the artificial manipulation by the goobermint. The solution is there get the goobermint out of the economy, get rid of artificial aberrant baseless price controls and get rid of the distortive assistance programs, the anarchy hysteria is just another control freak bogeyman.
The safety net is how we buy groceries for Amazon employees who are paid below what is required to live.
Another example for you: When the DPB (Domestic Purposes Benefit, aka solo parent benefit) was first introduced in NZ there were about 300 solo parents in NZ mostly women, all good, good intentions, they were doing it hard. Now there are many thousands of solo parent families with women pumping them out to receive greater DPB, more kids = more money. And the more money that is thrown at the problem you guessed it 3rd and 4th generation families that have never known employment.
You'd have a square inch more ground to stand on if you were saying bump the min wage but abolish the assistance programs because up until now it seems you want both.
The late edit wildgrass said:
"The fundamental question here is whether we the taxpayer should buy their groceries or if they should buy their own dang groceries from their Amazon paycheck."
If the Amazon employees can't afford to live the way they wish on an Amazon salary they need to find another job. You're right, the taxpayer should not be subsidising poor wages with assistance programs. Problem solved.
251d
@wajoma saidYou solve the problems of crumbling bridges and roadways in America by writing "well, this would not be a problem at all if you just eliminate roads."
You're going in circles, I can't write this enough, if there were no safety net people couldn't afford to work for Amazon. it's precisely the so called safety net that is making it possible for Amazon to pay low wages. This isn't which came first, chicken or the egg, this is goobermint started handing out money the market then responded to the artificial manipulation by the go ...[text shortened]... e right, the taxpayer should not be subsidising poor wages with assistance programs. Problem solved.
Good work.
251d
@wildgrass saidWut??
You solve the problems of crumbling bridges and roadways in America by writing "well, this would not be a problem at all if you just eliminate roads."
Good work.
Haha, wildgrass reduced to a gibbering ijit, didn't take much.
251d
1 edit
@wajoma said
You're going in circles, I can't write this enough, if there were no safety net people couldn't afford to work for Amazon. it's precisely the so called safety net that is making it possible for Amazon to pay low wages. This isn't which came first, chicken or the egg, this is goobermint started handing out money the market then responded to the artificial manipulation by the go ...[text shortened]... e right, the taxpayer should not be subsidising poor wages with assistance programs. Problem solved.
The solution is there get the goobermint out of the economy, get rid of artificial aberrant baseless price controls and get rid of the distortive assistance programs, the anarchy hysteria is just another control freak bogeyman.
You cannot functionally, practically, do that without dissolving the entire US goverment.
In practical terms, the closest we've come in my lifetime to having the political will for decreasing government involvement in American lives was the MAGA movement. What did they do? They tripled deficit spending, added new permanent spending programs, and accelerated the growth of existing entitlement programs. The government grew more rapidly under Trump than under any administration since Reagan.
Good work MAGA. Keep buying those hats.
251d
@wildgrass saidUh, the word 'required'......that is what the employee requires to live on. There is NO requirement that some company is required to pay them enough to live on.
The safety net is how we buy groceries for Amazon employees who are paid below what is required to live.
The fundamental question here is whether we the taxpayer should buy their groceries or if they should buy their own dang groceries from their Amazon paycheck.
Just a clarification. Carry on.
251d
2 edits
@wildgrass saidOhhhh, wildgrass. It is so easy and you just do not see it. We all do need to share in universally establishing of roads, but you seem to suggest that we should universally cover the cost of living of our citizens??? What?.
You solve the problems of crumbling bridges and roadways in America by writing "well, this would not be a problem at all if you just eliminate roads."
Good work.
You say 'buy their groceries above'. What? You are losing it, man. Careful, Suzianne and Kev may hold you to it!!!!
251d
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidGood lord you too??? You just pretend we don't currently have a safety net that buys food for people who don't have money using tax dollars?
Ohhhh, wildgrass. It is so easy and you just do not see it. We all do need to share in universally establishing of roads, but you seem to suggest that we should universally cover the cost of living of our citizens??? What?.
You say 'buy their groceries above'. What? You are losing it, man. Careful, Suzianne and Kev may hold you to it!!!!
I'm losing it? You're on Mars.
251d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidYou are right, but you choose to say the fact of that in a very cryptic way. The federal government has money, from tax revenues, in a program called welfare which should be used to pay everything for 50 million people who are desperate. It is presently doing just that, but it seems that it is paying for many many more people, which is a problem.
Good lord you too??? You just pretend we don't currently have a safety net that buys food for people who don't have money using tax dollars?
I'm losing it? You're on Mars.
So we all agree on the welfare program that exists right now, but you, for some very cryptic reason want to mention the phrase, ‘safety net.’ Why do you use the phrase ‘safety net’? Marauder has used that phrase a lot but none of you ever tell us what it means. If it were a cloth safety, net, like you see at the circus, we would understand what that means. But that is not what it is. What is it?