Posted on 10/20/2005 8:14:03 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Hey, I for one am not opposed to your giving those less fortunate a hand up, or back up in some cases... I think that is commendable and you are a charitable soul and I salute you for your efforts.
But why do you want to force me to pay for your charity? Cannot you see the incongruity of your belief? Donate to your church or give to a deserving family directly, one you know, but don't ask me to do it so you can get a warm glow self-satisfaction at my expense. That is so selfish, uncaring, and thoughtless this it is the cliche knee-jerk liberal mantra. Ask yourself what you are doing here on a conservative board? Do you think you are owed something because of your education? Learn to be productive, you will be amazed how much better you feel if you don't beg for a government teat for yourself or others. Then you can afford to be charitable yourself and not expect others to be charitable for you.
What you're missing is the increase in production that comes with the higher employment. That tends to negate inflationary pressures. Right now we have a minimum wage that creates unemployment. Those people don't produce. This unemployment also tends to place additional burdens on the rest of us, like additional crime and funding of social services. All of this things tend to increase prices.
A "matching funds" approach, on the other hand, would take people that were previously unemployed and make them employable. Crime reduction and welfare reduction and increased production would result.
Now the benefits of these things are generally distributed throughout society. This creates a "free rider" problem. It isn't unreasonable to ask that those that benefit from this arrangement to pay for it. Besides, most of the public want to help these "bottom" income earners. A tax for this purpose isn't that unreasonable. It certainly is much better than having a minimum wage.
On the other hand, idiocies like yours would help to further stimulate the underground economy and barter, which is a good thing.
Just the opposite would happen. A "matching funds" approach would bring more of the underground economy into the regular economy since there would be greater incentive to report transactions. This would also have an enormous positive effect on the illegal immigrant issue. That represents a huge part of the underground economy. Matching funds would create huge incentives to bring it into the light. And all this is easily implemented using negative tax rates at the bottom of the scale. Again, this encourages reporting.
If you would READ my posts instead of jumping in, you would see that I worked a 40 hr week (5PM to 1AM) while attending college. I did not go out and protest my LOW WAGES, I just thanked God that I had a job. That's my point.
If people are not willing to take responsibility for children they should not have them. Why should I pay for their mistakes?
"Ask yourself what you are doing here on a conservative board?"
Be careful making a$$ umptions, you know what that can make you out to be. You have no idea just how productive I and my spouse and children are.
Thanks so much for the lecture, you've missed the point of my arguments entirely and I can now lump you in with the selfrighteous, calloused, bigoted group.
You can also just skip anymore ill-informed insults regarding me, my education or my productivity.
That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make (maybe poorly) but some of the posters still don't understand.
"most people like me?" There are probably more people like me than you. And you like the other fella should watch your a$$ umptions.
All I am saying is, if you are a conservative act like one, not like a liberal. Be willing to spend your money, and not just mine.
Because "their mistake" might in the future be breaking into your house at 3am.
The trouble with the pure libertarian approach is that it forgets how often some people make their problems your problems.
Don't get me wrong. I'm actually registered Libertarian and understand where you're coming from. There is a good moral argument for your position. You're right, you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's mistake.
But one way or another, they will make you pay. Sometimes it is better to get out in front and handle their problem in your way. If you leave it to them, they'll end up screwing you.
Nicely stated. It's easy to see which people on this thread are entrepreneurs and who are hourly employees. Neither one is good or bad, but as an employer you take the chances on success or failure while the employees continue to make money (unless the business goes belly up).
Inre: post 66. Welcome to the club.
Where did I say you should? I simply responded to the statement that people should not have children because of a certain set of criteria that someone else posted.
And you never could and you never will. Pick any arbitrary number. The economy simply adjusts via inflation and unemployment until a new equilibrium is reached and the exact same situation results.
Can I join? Seems this thread is infested with socialists who have their supply and demand curves bass-ackwards.
Lay off one person, two persons, close to part time? Fixed expenses remain the same.
No, I raise prices, same as everyone else does. There are no job loses. When wholesale price of gasoline goes up, do I stop buying gasoline, no, I raise prices.
This world operates on inflation and expansion. When that halts there is big trouble. Price of labor, dictated or not is just another cost of doing business.
Just for the record, are there many people working for the minimum wage?
Isn't it an archaic relic?
" raising the minimum wage is the surest way to eliminate those jobs."
Facts figures? Heard that one before and haven't seen it come to pass.
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.