Posted on 10/24/2008 1:44:55 PM PDT by AzNASCARfan
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside.
The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more.
The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application
ha ha ha...thanks for the laugh!
That’s a great lesson for the Obamaniac!
Do that at a restaraunt that you don't ever plan to eat at again.
The waiter should still pay his income taxes on that $10 that he “patriotically” gave to someone else.
And he WILL if the meal was charged on a charge card.
DEFINATELY a keeper!
Bookmarking.
Thank you.
This one has been making the rounds on the net. It’s a good one, though!
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".
2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as "The Government." We will not participate in this pooling experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The "Government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".
6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free health care, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!
If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.
Amusing example, but as an exercise in logic turns on the issue of how the author decided that the homeless person was more “deserving’.
Don't you get it? He gave the homeless guy - the dude without a JOB - the money that the waiter earned. The waiter got a taste of his own medicine. ‘Spreading the wealth round.’
Perhaps the waiter learned, perhaps not. Some liberals are toooooooooooooooooooooo stupid to ever understand a good example.
OK?
Have a great day!
All taxation involves redistribution, how people feel about it (except for the most extreme sorts of “Taxation is Theft” libertarians) depends on where it’s being redistributed to - whether it goes to a defense contractor, a rural health clinic or to pay the emergency bill for the 20th emergency room visit for chronic alcoholic, it’s all still “redistribution” of your money to somebody else.
How much redistribution, and to whom, is a matter for the voters to decide. I don’t like a lot of the redistributive spending decisions made by our elected representatives, but as long as I want to live here I’ve got to pay my taxes along with everyone else, and my option if I want to change public policy is to do so by altering their behavior. And looking at the world’s present governments, it appears that the alternatives are authoritarian kleptocracy or economic and social anarchy.
However, our diners decision not to tip the server and donate to the homeless person is of a different nature.
For example, you can regard it as a decision about how to practice charity as he or she has no legal obligation to tip the server and/or drop a dollar in the beggars cup.
And for the diner to be making the point they (apparently) feel they are making in this anecdote this has to be the case: having no obligation to either party, neither the waiter or the homeless person has reason to be upset if the diner prefers the other, and the diner is solely responsible for making the choice and either choice is equally reasonable.
However, you can also regard tipping the server as a matter of an informal but widely recognized economic contract: I provide you with good service, you provide me with additional income.
Not everyone observes the contract, some servers believe a tip is their due for poor service, and some people who refuse to tip no matter how good the service. And for the contract to be effective (that is to be a fair exchange) people have to be somewhat altruistic: I tip up for good service at a restaurant in a strange city which I will never return, and the server (hopefully) provides me with good service without knowing in advance whether or not I will tip. Nevertheless, the arrangement is advantageous enough so it is widely practiced with sufficient regularity so it works the mutual advantage of both parties.
So when the diner violates the terms of his informal contract with the server, he or she is not practicing “redistribution” in the sense of following a formal or informal set of agreed-upon rules, instead he or she is engaging in act of economic anarchy, subverting a system of agreed-upon rules to the detriment of both the formal parties to the contract.
The Waiter has ONE contract, serve me my food and stay out of my face.
Period.
If I wore a ‘Merry Christmas’ button in a Muslim frequented establishment I would expect lower tips.
A waiter with an Obama button(or McCain button), MUST be expecting lower tips.
Libs, however, whine about everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.