Nope. There is a big difference in taking what you earn and distributing it to the non-productive and in preventing you from making your money by exploiting others. Perhaps you think you have the right to use people who are at a disadvantage for your personal financial gain. I don't agree that you do, even if the law did allow it. In effect, all you're doing is contributing more of your tax dollars for redistribution anyway, to subsidize those you are underpaying in the first place.
There is a big difference in taking what you earn and distributing it to the non-productive and in preventing you from making your money by exploiting others.
No it isn't. The net effect is that you cause the employer to pay more for a service than it is actually worth. This is in fact the same thing as taking money from someone. You don't believe in freedom or in the free market. Apparently, you believe that the nanny state intervening between willing workers and willing employers is somehow beneficial. Your views are very much like the patronizing liberals who believe that everyone needs their help. The government actually causes many of the problems that we have by interfering with the free market (as a result of do-gooders such as yourself).
Perhaps you think you have the right to use people who are at a disadvantage for your personal financial gain.
Apparently you think you have the right to interfere with the contract formed by two willing adults (employer and employee). Perhaps we should simply ban private property and force citizens to pay 100% of their earnings to the federal government so that the government can ensure that everyone has the same amount of money?
don't agree that you do, even if the law did allow it. In effect, all you're doing is contributing more of your tax dollars for redistribution anyway, to subsidize those you are underpaying in the first place.
Why should the government force me to subsidize anyone in the first place?
Will you at least admit that you are a socialist? If you don't think you are, please explain the difference between you and a socialist. Another question for you, since you support the minimum wage. Why is the minimum wage $5.35/hr? Some call for an increase to over $7.00/hr? What do you think the right number is? Would you support a $50/hr minimum wage? Why or why not? What would be the consequence of making a $50 minimum wage? Looking forward to your answers....
"We have become a nation of slaves. The slavemasters wield the Constitution like a weapon to uphold perversity and weak-mindedness and dishonesty and Godlessness while not allowing the Constitution to protect innocence or tradition, goodness or truth or Godliness. They require the cover of darkness to do their dirty deeds and will run roughshod over anything of the light. Anything that promises to bring the typical democrat voter out of that ignorance is perceived as a threat. If they lose the issues that appeal to the gut reaction of the ignorant they have nothing. I'm sure there are exceptions to my description, but I believe the ones I described are what makes the RATS so dangerous.
Where exactly is the minimum wage (or the right of the federal government to interfere with citizens business affairs) mentioned?