One thing I can tell you anecdotally, the US employs a hell of a lot of people to do things we'd never hire anyone for in Aus. Greeters at stores, umpteen table staff, valets, service gas stations.
I don't know where you were, but these things are uncommon in the U.S. The only store I've been in that uses greeters is Wal Mart. Valets are usually found only at upscale places or someplace that has very limited parking. Self-service gas stations are the rule. It's rare to find a place that still has someone pumping gas.
I don't know where you were, but these things are uncommon in the U.S. The only store I've been in that uses greeters is Wal Mart. Valets are usually found only at upscale places or someplace that has very limited parking. Self-service gas stations are the rule. It's rare to find a place that still has someone pumping gas.
In NJ, where I live, the gas pumps can ONLY be operated by a station attendant. That's a law. I believe a similar one exists in OR. Apart from the regulations, there're plenty of gas stations with "full service" aisles in NY along with "self-service" ones. Gas is slightly more expensive at the "full service" pumps.
Valet parking is in use at places both large and small. On the "humongous" end of the spectrum, Palisades Center Mall and Garden State Plaza Mall come to mind.
To see a store greeter, I don't need to go to a stinkin Wal Mart -- I can take a walk to a BestBuy down the street. Or a Bed, Bath & Beyond a few blocks down. Or a Barnes & Noble near there.
I was going to note NJ's law, but two states out of 50 qualifies as rare and I didn't think it was worth mentioning. I still say all these things are the exception rather than the rule as Conglacio implied. If you give people the option of full service or valet parking along with self-service gas or a parking lot, it's a luxury service. There may be some moderate additional employment over Australia that stems from having luxury services, but how significant is it to the employment picture?
Kehema, as much as I am inclined to ask you endless questions about your Dad, would you say that the criticisms of groups such as WalMart watch are valid? If not, where does their reality differ from what you have experienced?
To get a little off track... if you ask my dad he'll say Wal*Mart, as a company, completely changed after Sam Walton died and his kids took over. He used to feel the company cared about the employees but now he feels like the employees are the last thing they think about. As a store co-manager, over the last three years his annual pay has gone from 50k down to 30k while his performance evals have been better and they've increased his responsibilities and areas that he supervises. They've done this just by changing the bonus structure for management "in response to complaints from employees". They've also been encouraging him to fire more employees as they stated in a meeting the other day that "In this economy it'll be easy to get more help." So if someone gets one bad eval, let 'em go. If they show up late for work a couple times, let 'em go. They've also now taken the stance that all absences are unexcused whether or not you have a doctor's excuse. And seeing as how most of their employees don't get any sick leave you're either going to get reasons to fire everybody or just have a ton of sick people passing out in the aisles because they couldn't take a day to go to a doctor.
Oh, and since the big lawsuit a few years back about overtime they've begun giving their managers more time off but "encouraging" them to come in on their off days and work off the clock. They recently told my dad that they would like for him to work 12 hour shifts 7 days a week from November 1st to Christmas. They made sure to point out it wasn't mandatory but that they felt it would really help out. When he declined to do this he had several meetings with upper management and they threatened to write him up, demote him, or transfer him. He still works 60 or 70 hours a week even though he's only scheduled for 35 but apparently the official schedule and what they expect you to work is different. So yeah, I think a lot of the complaints against the working conditions in Wal*Mart are valid.
Malor wrote:At the height of the Great Depression, one source opines that the number would have been about 25%, though of course they didn't have that number then.
They had to sell that number for firewood so they could boil their shoes.
If you ever had any grandparents that grew up in the depression it always seemed that they kept a huge stockpile of food. I know my grandmother used to have stacks of canned beets, corn, and beans kept in the basement. It looked like a bombshelter. I guess such methods transpired from living in the shoe eating days.
Frankly I think you, and your good wife, have had to work too hard.
The "haves" and "have nots" make personal decisions where to draw their own line. I knew this when I was a boy, and life only reinforced it. There is no such thing as "working too hard" if you're unhappy with your situation in life. That's the crux of the issue. For some people, it is too hard, and to me, those people don't deserve anything above whatever handouts the "haves" provide them.
Trust me, it would have been a LOT easier to not get an education and work for $10-$15 an hour ringing up groceries until I die. No thinking, no hard decisions, just show up and scan the barcodes. Of course, I also wouldn't have a mercedes, and I really wanted that mercedes. 
I was amazed at the level of personal service in the US when I visited for 2 months. How this does or does not translate into unemployment, I know not.This is what used to be called a "service-based economy" :)
Used to be? Has it changed? We're still primarily employers of "services" - it's part of the reason why our exports are so low. That and our labor is too expensive.
You're not drawing that line by raising the minimum wage - you're simply making a lower standard of living illegal. "Live well on what you make, or don't work."
Could you explain how that is not encouragement to work? How is not working 'illegal'?
Incidentally Australian unemployment is around US$450 a week, including rent assistance. It lasts forever, so long as you demonstrate you are going for jobs every week with a 'jobs diary'. There are sometimes obligations placed on the receipient, the 'work for the dole' program, such as going to a job training program or simply planting trees. As far as I am aware such obligations normally end up being about 8 hrs a week - I'd have to check.
I was going to note NJ's law, but two states out of 50 qualifies as rare and I didn't think it was worth mentioning. I still say all these things are the exception rather than the rule as Conglacio implied. If you give people the option of full service or valet parking along with self-service gas or a parking lot, it's a luxury service. There may be some moderate additional employment over Australia that stems from having luxury services, but how significant is it to the employment picture?
That's my question 
My experience is from 2 months in the US about 10 years ago. It may be entirely out of date! I was astounded at the number of employees people handing me things, asking how I was, saying hello. I spent about two weeks in LA, two in San Fran, a week in San Diego and the rest in smaller places in Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada.
Until about 15 years ago, when US companies began to filter their ideas in, our idea of service was 'what do you want? Here you go. Bugger off'. It was simple and it worked, lol.
Conglacio wrote:Kehema, as much as I am inclined to ask you endless questions about your Dad, would you say that the criticisms of groups such as WalMart watch are valid? If not, where does their reality differ from what you have experienced?
To get a little off track... if you ask my dad he'll say Wal*Mart, as a company, completely changed after Sam Walton died and his kids took over. He used to feel the company cared about the employees but now he feels like the employees are the last thing they think about. As a store co-manager, over the last three years his annual pay has gone from 50k down to 30k while his performance evals have been better and they've increased his responsibilities and areas that he supervises. They've done this just by changing the bonus structure for management "in response to complaints from employees". They've also been encouraging him to fire more employees as they stated in a meeting the other day that "In this economy it'll be easy to get more help." So if someone gets one bad eval, let 'em go. If they show up late for work a couple times, let 'em go. They've also now taken the stance that all absences are unexcused whether or not you have a doctor's excuse. And seeing as how most of their employees don't get any sick leave you're either going to get reasons to fire everybody or just have a ton of sick people passing out in the aisles because they couldn't take a day to go to a doctor.
Oh, and since the big lawsuit a few years back about overtime they've begun giving their managers more time off but "encouraging" them to come in on their off days and work off the clock. They recently told my dad that they would like for him to work 12 hour shifts 7 days a week from November 1st to Christmas. They made sure to point out it wasn't mandatory but that they felt it would really help out. When he declined to do this he had several meetings with upper management and they threatened to write him up, demote him, or transfer him. He still works 60 or 70 hours a week even though he's only scheduled for 35 but apparently the official schedule and what they expect you to work is different. So yeah, I think a lot of the complaints against the working conditions in Wal*Mart are valid.
Wow. The big thing you never get in the numbers is how all this makes you feel. Having the pressure, always afraid of losing your job.
Would make a wonderful RICO case! Prove that the Walton family is gaining financial benefit from an organisation, should be pretty easy, and that individuals in that organisation are comitting crime. Surely all the coerced unpaid overtime and endangering people's health is a crime of some sort. Then, under RICO, you can charge the Waltons with every single violation.
Only stumbling block I can see is not having it thrown out of court because no one considers these actions to be organised crime, merely practical business policies necessary to survive in the modern economic environment 
Conglacio wrote:Frankly I think you, and your good wife, have had to work too hard.
The "haves" and "have nots" make personal decisions where to draw their own line. I knew this when I was a boy, and life only reinforced it. There is no such thing as "working too hard" if you're unhappy with your situation in life. That's the crux of the issue. For some people, it is too hard, and to me, those people don't deserve anything above whatever handouts the "haves" provide them.
Fair enough then.
Victorian values never really went away. The undeserving poor, the useless eaters, the surplus population. The distinctly American brand of Christianity that said you would know those blessed in the here after, because they will be blessed in this life - was that Calvin? I forget. The trickle down effect where the best way to feed to poor is to overload the banquest table of the rich so scraps that fall unwanted to the floor will probably get a little better. The working poor get 'handouts' while those who trade pieces of paper around without every creating anything of use value 'earn' the fabulous sums they make. The rich are so much wiser in distributing money - how could they not be when they have so much?
It all has a wonderfully self-evident character to it. Forces of the market, forces of nature. How could someone be wealthy if they were not worthy? After all we live in a meritocracy, not a democracy!
Your terminator as Santa icon is fabulously apt, and I admire your honesty in opinion. I don't agree, but I respect the kind of utilitarian standpoint from which you come.
Staats wrote:You're not drawing that line by raising the minimum wage - you're simply making a lower standard of living illegal. "Live well on what you make, or don't work."
Could you explain how that is not encouragement to work? How is not working 'illegal'?
I suppose I need clarification on what you're trying to accomplish. I am assuming you're trying to ensure everyone has a specified standard of living - that by "drawing the line" you set that standard of living.
Assuming the above: I am not stating that there is no encouragement to work, or that not working is illegal. I am saying it makes working for less illegal, which does not ensure any standard of living. If someone cannot find a job that gives the requisite standard of living, they cannot work.
If you want to ensure a standard of living, do it right and just distribute checks.
Shoal07 wrote:Conglacio wrote:Frankly I think you, and your good wife, have had to work too hard.
The "haves" and "have nots" make personal decisions where to draw their own line. I knew this when I was a boy, and life only reinforced it. There is no such thing as "working too hard" if you're unhappy with your situation in life. That's the crux of the issue. For some people, it is too hard, and to me, those people don't deserve anything above whatever handouts the "haves" provide them.
Fair enough then.
Victorian values never really went away. The undeserving poor, the useless eaters, the surplus population. The distinctly American brand of Christianity that said you would know those blessed in the here after, because they will be blessed in this life - was that Calvin? I forget. The trickle down effect where the best way to feed to poor is to overload the banquest table of the rich so scraps that fall unwanted to the floor will probably get a little better. The working poor get 'handouts' while those who trade pieces of paper around without every creating anything of use value 'earn' the fabulous sums they make. The rich are so much wiser in distributing money - how could they not be when they have so much?
It all has a wonderfully self-evident character to it. Forces of the market, forces of nature. How could someone be wealthy if they were not worthy? After all we live in a meritocracy, not a democracy!
Your terminator as Santa icon is fabulously apt, and I admire your honesty in opinion. I don't agree, but I respect the kind of utilitarian standpoint from which you come.
I'm not saying I don't give or give back to those in need - I'm saying it grows tougher to justify forcing others to do so. When you see that the people who find their stature in life unaccepatable, and are willing to sacrifice to climb up, do so, it's hard to watch a lazy person who receives handouts from the government complain they're not getting enough. My wife and I probably pay more (or right around) in taxes a year than what's considered the "average household income" - which is around $42k I think. Most of my taxes go to social programs (according to the US Budget), and on top of that I give more w/ charity. However, that's my personal choice and not one that I politically believe we should force upon others (i.e. by rasing taxes even more). This is why I have a problem with Democrat ideals (and I also have plenty of problems with the reps as well) because they hold certain beliefs that society should take care of everyone - sick, poor, unfortunate, and lazy - regardless of why. Clinton believed everyone should own a home. In America (I looked this up the other day) we actually have 69% of people who own a home (it's a measurement in the standard of living index). It's not the top (we're 12th overall for SoL, but I think in the top 10 in housing). The desire to make that 100% will either bankrupt this nation or turn us into a heavily socialist country. I don't want to be like Iceland where you pay 90% in taxes so it doesn't matter if you're a doctor or a waiter - you all live the same. It's the ultimate "redistribution of weath", but it also leaves zero incentive to improve your stature in life.
I'm not saying we shouldn't help those who cannot help themselves - I have disabled family members who are well taken care of by the government (they have housing and food). I'm saying those who can help themselves but choose not to should be on their ass.
I'm saying those who can help themselves but choose not to should be on their ass.
How is 'able but unwilling' to be determined?
What does 'on their ass' consist of?
On how much your wife and your good self pay in tax, what do you make of the pittance business and the wealthy pay? Does the fact that Warren Buffett pays a lower perrcentage of tax on his earnings than his secretary pays on hers trouble you?
Conglacio wrote:Staats wrote:You're not drawing that line by raising the minimum wage - you're simply making a lower standard of living illegal. "Live well on what you make, or don't work."
Could you explain how that is not encouragement to work? How is not working 'illegal'?
I suppose I need clarification on what you're trying to accomplish. I am assuming you're trying to ensure everyone has a specified standard of living - that by "drawing the line" you set that standard of living.
Assuming the above: I am not stating that there is no encouragement to work, or that not working is illegal. I am saying it makes working for less illegal, which does not ensure any standard of living. If someone cannot find a job that gives the requisite standard of living, they cannot work.
If you want to ensure a standard of living, do it right and just distribute checks.
Your words suggest that you feel people have a 'right to work' for as little as they will personally accept. I disagree. A minimum wage/conditions helps maintain a certain level of decent treatment across the labour force. If there are jobs so unproductive that employing anyone to do them rationally requires paying a pittance, then they should go undone. I don't think hiring a bunch of people for pennies to do something worth slightly more than pennies is a particularly worthwhile activity. Furthermore, I don't think Bob should be permitted to undercut Jill on the same work because Bob is 5% more desperate.
My personal definition of fair was stated earlier, but I'm happy to copy and paste 'Personally, I think one person working full time (38 hrs a week) should be able to have a decent place to live, health care and access to quality free education for one dependant with enough money left over for a single modest vice.' That, and naturally a lot of details need to be added, is the kind of existence for full-time working people I would like to see everywhere. Naturally a minimum wage and conditions does not ensure anything, merely sets forth a base proposition.
Somehow I don't think the hand out method will work. Regardless of issues of sustainability, there are simply some persons for whom it would fail. Homeless people in Australia are overwhelmingly mentally ill. Last survey I heard of homeless in Sydney, over a decade ago now, came up with roughly 70% being schizophrenic. They were homeless because they literally could not handle applying for the dole. Handing such afflicted persons a cheque isn't going to do very much for them.
Well, you and I disagree on what is fair and what is an effective method of relieving poverty. I maintain mandating a living wage is a salve for the conscience, not poverty.
The hand out method works flawlessly for the most part - people need money, so we give them money. Understand when I say "cutting checks" I'm talking about giving everyone money - working, not working, disabled, etc. It's not a hand-up, it's a handout. It provides an income boost for those that are working poorly paying jobs and a baseline for everyone. (And yes, the income provided would be decreased - slowly - as earned income grows.)
Schizophrenia is an orthogonal issue... it's not as if living wage helps anyone who can't fill out paperwork.
Shoal07 wrote:I'm saying those who can help themselves but choose not to should be on their ass.
How is 'able but unwilling' to be determined?
What does 'on their ass' consist of?
On how much your wife and your good self pay in tax, what do you make of the pittance business and the wealthy pay? Does the fact that Warren Buffett pays a lower perrcentage of tax on his earnings than his secretary pays on hers trouble you?
No.
Individuals with the wealth of people like Warren Buffet pay more in taxes than thousands of average americans combined. You can't just look at the percentage and say "that's unfair!" Let's say his secretary makes 100k. She then likely pays somewhere around 28-30% tax, or 30k. Let's say Warren buffet makes 1 billion in the same year. You honestly think he should give 300 million of that to the US Government? At some point we have to make thier taxes reasonable, while they still pay signifigantly more than anyone else. If we made the rich pay 30-40% of the millions and billions they earn, they would just leave the country. In turn, they not only take all their wealth, but also all their taxes...
Think about this:
The American[/url]]"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes."
So, the top 10% of America pays 68% of the taxes we take in, while 50% of America, combined, only pays 3%. You think they're under-taxed? What happens when we raise the taxes on that top 10%, and they leave? That's 68% of the US Tax income gone. We'd be broke overnight.
Buffett himself disagrees with you, Shoal. He's been asking to be taxed more for many years. He probably pays less, percentage-wise, than you do.
Remember, it's not just high income earners, it's also corporations. The really wealthy don't even show up in your figures, because they can massage their 'earnings' at will.
Buffett himself disagrees with you, Shoal. He's been asking to be taxed more for many years. He probably pays less, percentage-wise, than you do.
Remember, it's not just high income earners, it's also corporations. The really wealthy don't even show up in your figures, because they can massage their 'earnings' at will.
You can discuss ideology all day long, it still doesn't change the fact the rich pay the vast majority of tax income the federal government receives, that's not opinion. You can argue they should pay more, and I would argue they'd leave (eventually).
![Pyroman[FO]'s picture](https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/pictures/pictures/picture-27.png "Pyroman[FO]'s picture")
Malor wrote:Buffett himself disagrees with you, Shoal. He's been asking to be taxed more for many years. He probably pays less, percentage-wise, than you do.
Remember, it's not just high income earners, it's also corporations. The really wealthy don't even show up in your figures, because they can massage their 'earnings' at will.
You can discuss ideology all day long, it still doesn't change the fact the rich pay the vast majority of tax income the federal government receives, that's not opinion. You can argue they should pay more, and I would argue they'd leave (eventually).
And go where? Honestly, do you think they'd keep more of their money in Europe? Do you think they'd go to some 3rd world shithole to avoid a 3% tax increase? Seriously? Canada?
If you look at how much companies actually pay vs. their income, we have the second lowest corporate tax rate in the world. Officially it's one of the highest, but there's so many loopholes the tax money is leaking out of that most corporations don't pay squat. They're not going anywhere.
And the rich get way more out of the government than we do. Warren Buffet can call up anybody in the government, down to the President himself, and get a personal face to face meeting. He will never, ever go to the kind of jail you or I would go to for murdering someone. In fact, he'd have a pretty damn good chance of not going to jail for anything, ever, period. Don't you think he should pay more for that kind of privilege?
I'm not saying I don't give or give back to those in need - I'm saying it grows tougher to justify forcing others to do so.
You're not forcing anything. We live in a democratically elected republic. We elect representatives to make laws, that everyone then has to follow. If the people want the government to pass a law increasing taxes and giving it to poor people, that's not "forcing others" to do anything. You live in America knowing it's laws can be amended by elected representatives, and if you're rich you know you're outnumbered 95:1. You can always leave of your own free will and never have to pay American taxes again. Go buy an island chain in the Caribbean and setup a "Republic of General Electric" or whatever. Except they don't, because they get more out of America than they put in. It's obviously a good deal for them or they'd leave.
And like I said above, they're not going to get a better deal for their money anywhere else. There's a reason they're here in the first place.
I'm not going to argue retoric with statistics, it's pointless. I've made (and shown) my point.
it still doesn't change the fact the rich pay the vast majority of tax income the federal government receives
No, people with high incomes pay the vast majority of personal income taxes. There's a gigantic difference between those two things. The truly rich can live very comfortably while showing virtually no "income" at all. It's only the moderately wealthy that really get soaked.
One stat I haven't seen is how much income tax corporations pay compared with individuals; I suspect that's probably dropped sharply, but I haven't seen numbers on that in many years.
I'm not going to argue retoric with statistics, it's pointless. I've made (and shown) my point.
Your statistics require some context, though. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that a sizable chunk of the Top 10% could never flee the country over taxes.
According to the IRS, the Top 10% AGI for 2006 was $108,904. The Top 1% AGI break was $388,806 and the average AGI was $31,987.
If you dig into the numbers, you'll find that some 15 million filings were made with people that had AGIs between $100K and $500K. These filings were responsible for generating $383 billion in tax revenue, about 36% of all taxes taken in. These are people with incomes firmly in the Top 10%, but they're not going to flee the country. They are corporate VPs, small business owners, lawyers, etc. They are people that are certainly doing well, but they don't have the resources to move to a different country just because of taxes nor could they because their jobs wouldn't allow it.
There were less than one million filings in 2006 with an AGI of more than half a million. Importantly, 600,000 of those were for AGIs of over $500K, but under $1 million. This group brought in $93 billion in tax revenues, or about 8.7% of all taxes taken in. Could these guys leave the country if taxes were increased? Maybe. But that would depend if they were consistently pulling down close to seven figures a year or if they just had a really good year in the stock market or made some really big sales commissions.
After that, the air gets rarefied quickly. There are only 350,000 Americans who make more than AGI $1 million plus a year. They collectively brought in $276 billion in tax revenues, about 25% of all taxes. Could they leave? Yeah, probably. If taxes were their only concern and there was nothing else tying them here, like family, friends, businesses, etc.
One stat I haven't seen is how much income tax corporations pay compared with individuals; I suspect that's probably dropped sharply, but I haven't seen numbers on that in many years.
Man, I'm glad our taxes go to bureaucrats that collect this kind of data.
Individual income tax [1]
Returns: 138,893,908
Tax revenue: $1,366,241,000,000
Corporation income tax [1]
Returns: 2,507,728 [2]
Tax revenue: $395,536,000,000
Employment taxes [1]
Returns: 30,740,592
Tax revenue: $849,733,000,000 [3]
Excise taxes [1]
Returns: 907,165
Tax revenue: $53,050,000,000
Gift tax [1]
Returns: 252,522
Tax revenue: $2,420,000,000
Estate tax [1]
Returns: 49,924
Tax revenue: $24,558,000,000
Buffett himself disagrees with you, Shoal. He's been asking to be taxed more for many years. He probably pays less, percentage-wise, than you do.
Remember, it's not just high income earners, it's also corporations. The really wealthy don't even show up in your figures, because they can massage their 'earnings' at will.
That's one of the arguments for the flat tax.
Malor wrote:Buffett himself disagrees with you, Shoal. He's been asking to be taxed more for many years. He probably pays less, percentage-wise, than you do.
Remember, it's not just high income earners, it's also corporations. The really wealthy don't even show up in your figures, because they can massage their 'earnings' at will.
That's one of the arguments for the flat tax.
Or a progressive tax like that proposed by Adam Smith.
Well, you and I disagree on what is fair and what is an effective method of relieving poverty. I maintain mandating a living wage is a salve for the conscience, not poverty.
The hand out method works flawlessly for the most part - people need money, so we give them money. Understand when I say "cutting checks" I'm talking about giving everyone money - working, not working, disabled, etc. It's not a hand-up, it's a handout. It provides an income boost for those that are working poorly paying jobs and a baseline for everyone. (And yes, the income provided would be decreased - slowly - as earned income grows.)
Schizophrenia is an orthogonal issue... it's not as if living wage helps anyone who can't fill out paperwork.
Most agreed on the living wage for schizophrenics. I was responding to a paragraph that read 'If you want to ensure a standard of living, do it right and just distribute checks.'
Your suggestion about social insurance is enacted here for injured, disabled or sick persons, and I agree with it. People are permitted to work while getting support, and it is proportionately reduced until eliminated. I agree that it would be reasonable to extend to unemployed persons, so long as the level of support is 'you aren't forced to eat pet food and you don't sleep in the rain' rather than 'leading a comfortable life'. The latter should be the minimum full-time wage IMHO. Furthermore, I think it reasonable for unemployed persons to be compelled to demonstrate an effort to become employed, and to be do some community service 8 hours a week.
Unconditional cheques bring out my conservative side where I do fear the 'moral hazard' of the devilish welfare state.
Malor wrote:Buffett himself disagrees with you, Shoal. He's been asking to be taxed more for many years. He probably pays less, percentage-wise, than you do.
Remember, it's not just high income earners, it's also corporations. The really wealthy don't even show up in your figures, because they can massage their 'earnings' at will.
That's one of the arguments for the flat tax.
I think you misunderstand what Malor means. The wealthy do not earn 'wages' as their major source of income they make capital gains. The capital gains tax is 15%, assuming you can't conjure any write offs.
You're not forcing anything. We live in a democratically elected republic. We elect representatives to make laws, that everyone then has to follow. If the people want the government to pass a law increasing taxes and giving it to poor people, that's not "forcing others" to do anything.
Sure it is. If 51% of the people vote to tax the other 49% and those people disagree, there isn't much they can do about it except fight back or knuckle under - but they sure aren't doing it voluntarily. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Don't mistake acquiesence for approval.
The hand out method works flawlessly for the most part - people need money, so we give them money. Understand when I say "cutting checks" I'm talking about giving everyone money - working, not working, disabled, etc. It's not a hand-up, it's a handout. It provides an income boost for those that are working poorly paying jobs and a baseline for everyone. (And yes, the income provided would be decreased - slowly - as earned income grows.)
The only problem with this scheme is that the money has to come from somewhere. When you say "we give them money", what you really mean is "we take money from some people and give it to others, while taking a cut off the top to run this racket." This kind of scheme only "works" when you have a large number of wage-earners and a few people who are receiving the hand-outs. It doesn't work at all when you are either A) giving a hand-out to everyone, or B) you have relatively few wage-earners supporting larger numbers of people receiving hand-outs. In case A it is simply highly inefficient - you take a certain amount from most people, and give them back a smaller amount, doing a lot of work for very little benefit. In case B you go bankrupt borrowing money, or raise taxes on the few wage-earners to the point where they refuse to work or rebel. The math just doesn't work.
Pages