Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
California is a sorry excuse for a state
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dmac1" data-source="post: 3251391" data-attributes="member: 60252"><p>If we allow corporations to pay less than a wage people can live on, we end up with what we have now- people working full-time and still needing help from the rest of us. That means that instead of the employer paying enough to live a basic life, we the taxpayers end up paying. </p><p></p><p>I can't see how any intelligent person can want their taxes to be higher so McDonalds can pay less. We need to demand, or require, that any employer pays at least enough to live on, including a basic home, food, utilities, transportation to be able to go to work, and medical care. </p><p></p><p>Until employers pay enough to live on, your taxes will be higher than they need to be. Yes, there will still be people who can't work, or won't work, or are unhirable for some other reason, but a large % of people collecting social benefits are working people. </p><p></p><p>You and I are subsidizing employers like Walmart and McDonalds indirectly. That takes them out of the 'free market' ideal where employers succeeed or fail on their own. Demanding fair pay, a livable wage, would reduce the level of subsidy. I'd rather pay 10 cents more for a burger the few times a year I eat fast food than to pay higher taxes to support a company I don't really care about. Let McDonalds fail or succeed on their own while demanding that their workers get paid enough to live on.</p><p></p><p>We could greatly reduce the dollars spend on the aid, plus the tax dollars spent on the bureaucracy managing that aid if employers were required to pay enough to live on if they want to stay in business.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dmac1, post: 3251391, member: 60252"] If we allow corporations to pay less than a wage people can live on, we end up with what we have now- people working full-time and still needing help from the rest of us. That means that instead of the employer paying enough to live a basic life, we the taxpayers end up paying. I can't see how any intelligent person can want their taxes to be higher so McDonalds can pay less. We need to demand, or require, that any employer pays at least enough to live on, including a basic home, food, utilities, transportation to be able to go to work, and medical care. Until employers pay enough to live on, your taxes will be higher than they need to be. Yes, there will still be people who can't work, or won't work, or are unhirable for some other reason, but a large % of people collecting social benefits are working people. You and I are subsidizing employers like Walmart and McDonalds indirectly. That takes them out of the 'free market' ideal where employers succeeed or fail on their own. Demanding fair pay, a livable wage, would reduce the level of subsidy. I'd rather pay 10 cents more for a burger the few times a year I eat fast food than to pay higher taxes to support a company I don't really care about. Let McDonalds fail or succeed on their own while demanding that their workers get paid enough to live on. We could greatly reduce the dollars spend on the aid, plus the tax dollars spent on the bureaucracy managing that aid if employers were required to pay enough to live on if they want to stay in business. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
California is a sorry excuse for a state
Top