It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe
I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.
The company most certainly is.
Do you?
I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?
If not, please start paying your fair share.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut
State coercion is a great way to absove oneself of that civic responsibility though.
The person who voted for the welfare state walks down the street with his extra money at the end of the month and *could* opt to donate it to a homeless man or the worthy charitable cause, but then he shrugs. "Why bother?" he thinks. "I voted for that new social program that already provides for people like these. I am a good person who does my part." And he walks on by whistling content that he is a great and moral person because he pays higher taxes and deserves whatever it is he's buying for himself with that extra money.
originally posted by: Tartuffe
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe
I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.
There is an easy solution to that which does not require government force and coercion. Start a company and pays those workers livable wages.
That’s my question for those who demand the state intervene: why don’t you just do what you demand of others? All parties get what they want.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut
Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut
Compared to the standards of living of most nations, there are very few poor and many of those tend to be that way by choice (lots of homeless have access to shelters but don't use them because they have mental issues or addiction issues they won't work on to abide by shelter rules and so stay on the streets) and others realize better living standards than the poor of other nations.
If we're comparing living standards to call Jesus a liar then this point has been discussed before. I suppose we really don't need as extensive a welfare state then. After all, our poor actually are pretty well off and not so poor after all.
I'm glad you admit it.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut
Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.
If we consider some primitive hunter-gatherer societies, then there is no poverty because there is no money, no real idea of personal ownership nor even of a concept of individuality separate to the group. In these situations (which must necessarily have occurred as part of the development of a society) there is no 'poor'. Similarly, in a future society where all basic needs are met, for all people, there are no 'poor'.
originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
A secularization of society isn't directly tied to a less charitable society though. What's the check box on your tax form to donate money to the Presidential election campaign for? Couldn't we just add a similar box for charitable welfare donations? Church charities are mostly run on donations right? Why should it be coercion in state charity?
originally posted by: thov420
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut
Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.
If we consider some primitive hunter-gatherer societies, then there is no poverty because there is no money, no real idea of personal ownership nor even of a concept of individuality separate to the group. In these situations (which must necessarily have occurred as part of the development of a society) there is no 'poor'. Similarly, in a future society where all basic needs are met, for all people, there are no 'poor'.
I may be wrong but there must have always been a hierarchy, the tribe leader and his "warriors/hunters" would eat first, and then there would be a hierarchy among the rest, much like a wolf pack. Everybody gets to eat but not equally.