Are you sure you have those words in the right order?
Are some words missing?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biden's Policies Hurting Small Businesses
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
Are some words missing?
I don't disagree.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
What does this have to do with legally mandated minimum wages in a capitalist market societies?
You argued that socialist countries wouldn't need min wages.
I showed one that could benefit.
(It has a starvation problem.)
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
And I explained my disagreement.
Let's not get stuck in an infinite loop.
(Do you know what those are?)
I couldn't agree more.
The $600/wk ($15/hr) benefit isn't an income one can live on except in poverty, but it's still probably more than most of these small business owners pay their employees. If a business can't generate enough revenue to support its owner and all of its employees, then let it close and let the owner get a job at Starbucks.
I understand that this person doesn't want to work for others, nor to earn a subsistence wage in a job like that, but if he can only accomplish that goal by giving similar underpaid jobs to others, he probably shouldn't be an entrepreneur in the first place. Let somebody else rent that space and provide a more profitable service or product, and pay people properly. Nobody who works a full-time job should have trouble making ends meet. It was possible in the mid-20th century, it is possible in the west European socialist democracies today, so it is possible in the States now, but will never happen if left to entrepreneurs alone to decide what an employee should have to live on.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Yes, I know. You're wrong IMO, but that's okay.
Liberty for the rich, unfairness that benefits the minority with means under the delusion that they 'deserve it,' peace for the rich to protect them from the exploited, all things typical for someone who can't see outside their relatively tiny bubble, or muster up basic human empathy.
Ayn Rand was a hateful crone and now she's dead (died in lonely poverty on the welfare she demonized). And nobody aught to mourn her.
I'm thinking much more broadly than dost thee.
Even I woudn't want to meet her in a dark alley.
But she's still better than the icons of socialism.
tytlyf
Not Religious
I believe Walmart receives $6+ Billion in corporate welfare every year. This isn't available to mom and pop small businesses.
The reason these subsidies are available to Walmart is because Republicans are bought and paid for by corporate entities.
Oh, dear...I see the fundamental problem between us.
You have "The Truth".
I have only opinions.
I'm not familiar with the specific "corporate welfare program".
But I do generally oppose financial subsidy.
For example, some local governments will try to attract
a new factory by offering property tax abatements.
I oppose that. It's ripe for corruption, & it's unfair.
Do you favor or oppose it?
Last edited:
They've tried stuff like that here, while only achieving mixed results. There's competition between cities, and some cities are able to offer a better deal. But there are others who argue that a better way to attract more business is to stick to the basics, such as a good education system and a decent infrastructure. If you neglect the things that count, then it doesn't matter what perks are offered.
I'm a fan of the basics, ie, one system for all.
Let businesses big & small compete on an equal footing.
It's either a false dilemma or a needless detour. But there you go again.
I don't think you know what those words mean.
Am I far off to infer that whenever you say words to the effect "well it's better than socialism" you mean:
- capitalism is better than socialism (which might be true, but is also a false diemma).
or
- you're just putting up a distraction to the discussion.
If neither of those, then why do you keep saying ~ "it's better than socialism" ? It's also better than eating babies, but discussing the eating of babies is simply off topic.
tytlyf
Not Religious
I think it depends on the proposed plan and the net benefit to the community. Sure it can lead to corruption because that's the problem with money. I think you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
And yet, you're constantly giving off the appearance that people with a different take than yours, using different definitions or asserting different beliefs, must be either lying, malicious, or simply too dense to understand your self-evidently correct opinions, while I'm convinced that even rational, well-meaning people can be wrong sometimes.
Funny how that goes, eh?