Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
It's not a misunderstanding, but I wanted to show that yes there is an inconsistency. We hear all the time about welfare queens and how our tax dollars are wasted by people that should get a job.
Well there are two sides of that coin and the inconsistency comes when the very people whom bitch and moan about welfare queens, turn blind eye to corporations whom abuse the system and cost tax payers money.
Consistency would mean, that you share the same discontent for both groups, not excusing one due to them being a corporate entity doing business. As was stated earlier by another, if your business model depends on your workers using social services to survive, then your business model is not sustainable and the tax payers should not be left with the burden.
I'm all for welfare reform, but I also want to see a end to corporations leaving the tax payers holding the bag, because they don't pay people enough to live on. We have a minimum wage for a reason, it just hasn't risen with inflation.
|
Liberals created this setup, and perhaps both sides take advantage of it... (though I don't really buy the theory that government is subsidizing walmart) ...so if you feel there is a problem with this setup, blame the liberals... don't blame the businesses, they have nothing to do with it, they are just playing along...
it's not business's problem if someone can live on their wage or not... worker and employer agree on a wage, worker performs a service and gets paid for it... there is nothing unfair or wrong about it...
if someone is unable to live on an income from a job at walmart, maybe it's not the right job for them? maybe they need to take on 2 jobs? or think about getting some skills so they can get a better paying job? or maybe they need to just show some initiative, work a little harder, so they can rise to the top?