Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
"We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Posted by ronalawn82 z9FL (ronalawn08@gmail.com) on
Sat, Feb 16, 13 at 4:48

The subject line is a quote from John Haidt's article.
In Time Magazine (Oct 22nd. 2012) the article is nicely precised.
From now on, I suppose that I will have to define the context whenever I use the terms fair and fairness. "a la Obama" or "a la Romney"
What do you think?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I believe that the author of the article is right in one regard--and that is that we can't agree on what fairness means.

But I don't want to be fair with YOUR money. What I would like to see is that after everyone pays the same RATE--that whatever one does with their money, or what they give to charity is their business and their idea of what is FAIR.

Conversely, as far as I'm concerned, after I pay a base percentage of tax (flat tax, which I support) and after everyone else pays that base rate (the same percentage), anything after that is none of your business, or anyone's business.

I have found that liberals tend to want to be "fair"--and that would be THEIR definition--NOT someone else's-- with someone else's money.

Particularly limousine liberals like Barack Obama.

There are a lot of people that disagree with that.

Whether someone "works harder" than others is really not even germane to the discussion, because it is not for liberals or anyone else to even consider how hard someone works for their money, or how much they have--after they pay federal taxes like everyone else. It's not their business.

After everyone pays the same percentage, we should simply decide what our priorities are and live within our means. I know, I know--that's quite laughable.

Democrats can always come up with trillions of ways (pun intended) to spend someone else's money in order to gain themselves votes and control. Republicans do the same thing, a little differently.

Democrats in Washington, led by Barack Obama, are presently doing so and will remove the incentive to make more if the government is intent on taking more and more.

Those that actually DO CONTRIBUTE to the federal coffers in the form of income tax may as well get on the dole like everyone else and sign up for free preschool, free Ipads, free cell phones, subsidized housing, extended unemployment benefits, food stamps, free health care, free inoculations, free tattoo removal ;).

I've said for years this would kill the Golden Goose.

This is just the beginning.

There is a way to share, a way to help and care for one another, without destroying the incentive to succeed and taking too much from the producers in life, and without destroying people by making them dependent and unmotivated.

I don't think Washington will be the answer--it is the problem.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The problem always comes down to the same dilemma: do you take too much from those with very little or nothing to spare (is that fair?) or do you take too much from those who will still be making a large profit regardless (but if they are still thriving and have lots of excess, what is "too much" and "unfair"?)

Phrased as an either/or proposition, I'd say there is no answer or solution that applies across the board.

Kate


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Taxes are a pooled resource spent as the duly elected governments , past and present, dictate. Matters not who is running the show by definition, given you have two parties, one or the other is spending someone elses money.

Unless of course one was to believe that only conservatives pay taxes.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Unless of course one was to believe that only conservatives pay taxes.

Makers and takers, makers and takers, patriots and the rest.

I wonder if the "makers" like a flat tax so much not only because they pay fewer taxes, but because the alternative is called a "progressive" tax.

Maybe if we renamed it a "freedom" tax.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Yes it comes back to the makers and takers argument. Since the butt is so low on the head of the makers I wonder what would happen to makers if the butt shuts down.

The butt stops buying your product? The maker becomes a taker.

The butt stops teaching maker's children. The maker becomes a taker. Although the education thing is low on the maker want for society. Smart people and all do not make good pets. You do not need much education to repeat "Personal Responsibility" and Don't Tax the rich". That is about as large of a vocabulary as my bird.

The taker stops supporting Oil Companies, Banks to big to fail, Big Farmers (the maker). The maker becomes a taker.

I think fair would be for the the takers stop giving to the makers.

Where does the maker get its money its money to have and to hold?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The basic issue - and it goes along with the other thread on brain structure and ideological leanings - is that humans tend toward being either self-regarding or other-regarding.

Oh, sure there is in-group identity and size of family unit and all that, but the default switch is often set to self-regarding tendencies or other-regarding tendencies. Not always, but often.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"...humans tend toward being either self-regarding or other-regarding."

I would concur.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The progressive tax system came about many, many years ago. People that make more pay more.

Demi is challenging the "fairness" of that. I guess the question is: is the progressive model still the right way to go?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The basic argument hasn't changed. With a flat tax (let's say, 10% of everybody's income), that would amount to a very big chunk out of the incomes of middle and lower class taxpayers who have little or no income left once they cover the basic necessities of life, but that would be a very low amount from those with higher incomes extending far beyond the necessities of life. Is that fair?

The problem is that there are many different ways of measuring fairness.

There is also the consideration of whether the government collects enough money to pay down on the national debt and cover all our favorite programs/projects that are essential (although we know that your favorite programs/projects are just wasted pork).

Kate


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The rich always want a flat tax because that will usually ensure they pay less in taxes.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Wonder why we Canadians don't obsess so much on taxes. We all wish we paid less ,and there is lots of grumbling come the end of April , but it is not the subject of the ongoing angst that it seems to be in the States


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Wonder why we Canadians don't obsess so much on taxes. We all wish we paid less ,and there is lots of grumbling come the end of April , but it is not the subject of the ongoing angst that it seems to be in the States


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I think there would be less angst in the US if more people realized that those people that don't pay federal income tax are not paying because they don't make enough money according to the existing rules to be required to pay any.

To be fair to demi, she does realize that and her point is usually that the rules should be changed.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 17, 13 at 13:17

"although we know that your favorite programs/projects are just wasted pork"

And that about says it all. It is like the whole "you get more of what you subsidize" argument.

I object to the subsidizing of the multi-billion dollar companies and for others it is subsidizing those with the least who waste their money on things like food and utilities (keeping the heat on in the winter) child care, school lunches, the elderly, housing etc.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I object to the subsidizing of the multi-billion dollar companies and for others it is subsidizing those with the least who waste their money on things like food and utilities (keeping the heat on in the winter) child care, school lunches, the elderly, housing etc.

mom, you might find it hard to understand. But none of us conservatives mind subsidizing those in need. What we don't want to do is keep subsidizing a bloated wasteful government that spends our money so unwisely that it is those in need that suffer for it.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 17, 13 at 13:58

....and MrsK you might have noticed that I did not say "conservatives". You know it is just possible that "cons and libs" don't always walk in lockstep with their parties, although from this forum you would not know it.

Trying to have any discussion on this forum is difficult when every subject breaks into "partisan talking points" from either side.

Reminds me of the deadlock in Washington, why is it that if one side brings up a point, the other side automatically opposes it (dems and repubs) even if they originally supported it.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

IMO this is a very useful exchange between Ohio and Mrs. Just an observation.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I think it's fair to exact some sort of tax obligation from everyone...no matter the amount of their income as I think it's a good idea for everyone to have a financial stake in the success of the country and how tax money is spent. How to arrive at the amount, I do not know. But, I believe it makes a big difference when we sacrifice personally.

In that vein, I also think it would be fair for politicians to be sent off to war in some capacity and for all citizens at home to give up something to support any war effort so that we're less likely to get into armed conflict.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The limousine conservatives will always consider their champagne glass half empty...and not because of their largesse.

-Ron-


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

mrkjun is on the right track in her criticism of bloated bureaucracies absorbing way too much taxes while doing good for the poor, elderly, the needy, and the Defense Department. Oops, how did the DoD slip in there; the bastion of job creators.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"The limousine conservatives will always consider their champagne glass half empty...and not because of their largesse.
-Ron-"

I can't find a defnition for "limousine conservative"; lots of talk aboout "limousine liberals". Can you define your term, Ron?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

mrkjun is on the right track in her criticism of bloated bureaucracies absorbing way too much taxes while doing good for the poor, elderly, the needy, and the Defense Department. Oops, how did the DoD slip in there; the bastion of job creators.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

demifloyd wrote,

What I would like to see is that after everyone pays the same RATE

This is a widespread mathematical canard -- that there's something magically and inherently fair in the concept of using multiplication -- as opposed to any other mathematical function -- which renders it somehow "fair". Computing taxes using multiplication (which is what "the same RATE" means, of course) is not inherently fairer than using, say, a constant; everyone pays $3,500. Why is that less "fair"? After all, everyone is paying the exact same amount -- why should people who don't take personal responsibility and therefore don't make as much as others get away with paying less in taxes? Or, how about we use a logarithmic function? Everyone pays a rate determined by the log of their income (scaled so the revenues work out). If you earn $10,000, your rate would be based on log(10000)=4; if you earn $10,000,000, it would be log (10000000)=7. Or subtraction -- you'd owe your income minus $250,000. How about a step function -- different rates depending on the absolute amount of income?

The point is that there is nothing special about multiplication that is inherently fairer than any other mathematical operation. That is a false assumption that underlies most "flat" tax proposals.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Can you define your term, Ron?

I sure can...it's a reactionary Republican who is well-off, who is not only ignorant of the real world but likes to refer to those in need as takers, and who use their self-perceived tax-paid dollars as funding over-fecund crops of minorities, immigrants, illegals, and other such irresponsible decision-makers, and who through their pejorative term of entitlements, obviously despise social safety nets...despite their constant, repeated, weak denials.

All in one sentence elvis. Is that good enough?

-Ron-


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The point is that there is nothing special about multiplication that is inherently fairer than any other mathematical operation. That is a false assumption that underlies most "flat" tax proposals.

Surprise, surprise, but I disagree. Nothing could be fairer than each entity (person or corp.) paying the same percentage of their income. Those who don't make as much pay less, and those who make more, PAY more.

The rich always want a flat tax because that will usually ensure they pay less in taxes.

bookemdano-- I disagree bigtime. So long as you remove deductions and investments from the equation, you'll actually see the wealthy pay a whole LOT MORE in taxes, because they won't be able to hide their income in write offs and tax deferred investments. You make X, you pay that same percentage on ALL of it.

I think fair would be for the the takers stop giving to the makers.

I agree. Then what you'd see happen is those who've made it on hard work will STILL rise to the top while those who've cheated, and made their fortunes by screwing every person that they've come incontact with would crash and burn. But the first group-- those who made it on their own-- I think you'd still see them stay as "makers".


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Hey Ron-- Especially after the help Obama gave Wall Street at the beginning of his first term, you want to bet there just might be democrats that fit that description as well?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Hey Bill--sounds like you'd have preferred the auto, housing, and banking Bush-deregulated sectors to collapse. Reactionary-defined capitalism at its finest.

-Ron-


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Ron, I've said that for years, in here. There NEVER should've been bailout one. That being said, it's not what this thread is about-- That in itself could power SEVERAL other threads.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

There is no 'fairness' in a Republican-controlled society. The word doesn't exist in their lexicon.

-Ron-


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I'm curious, though-- how did you take that from my comment about maybe there being some democrats in that bunch, too?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

It doesn't exist in any democrat's brain, either.

Edit-- spelling

This post was edited by bill_vincent on Sun, Feb 17, 13 at 17:14


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The greatest Sacrament in the Wholey Owned Church of Capitalistm is Profit and the greatest Sin is to give away Profit in the form of taxes for the unprofitable of country. Absolution for this Sin is offered as deep credits against current and future taxes owed.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"One you figure out that trickle-down economics doesn't work, then its pretty apparent that tax cuts for the wealthy are nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth upwards. "

Some economist said that, I don't remember which


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 17, 13 at 17:31

How about a War & Overseas Tax
Let's say that 40% of the defense budget (a guess) is spent solely for the war (Afghanistan) and all of the bases and support we have stationed in other lands (So.K, Germany, Japan, etc). Let the total of these annual offshore expenditures be directly paid for by a new War Tax. Everyone with an annual income of between $30K-$500K pays 1%. This progresses up to billionaires who pay 10% or higher to cover all of the associated War bills. The rich would pay their 10%, they'd rather not lose 100% so they will fight for the almighty dollar even if it's just 90 cents on the dollar.

This new War Tax will help lower the annual deficit and also make going to war less attractive (I would say profitable but I'll be nice).
Now then, that's fairness and balancedness.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

That's a hell of an idea, vgkg.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I also like the church of Free MarketsTM.

Those who attend that church don't understand what must be done when markets fail.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Thanks for the answer, Ron. A couple of questions about it: "who use their self-perceived tax-paid dollars" I'm wondering how tax-paid dollars can perceive themselves. I'm sure that's not what you mean (duh); what do you mean right there?

Right here: "funding over-fecund crops of minorities, immigrants, illegals, and other such" I take it that by "over-fecund" you're not referring to the definition which includes "highly imaginative" or "capable of intellectual productivity". I think you are saying that these "limousine conservatives" don't want to spend much on "minorities, immigrants, illegals, and other such", especially if they breed.

That's pretty unfair, lumping these groups together. We are a country made up of minorities and immigrants. The "illegals", well, they are illegal. and I can't think what the "other such" would be. Surely you don't believe there are enough people, who feel the way you have described them, to actually make a difference? I think that using your description above could be very destructive used in such an offhand way, the implication could be inferred that most conservatives feel this way.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 17, 13 at 17:43

Yeah, and hell would freeze over before it happens, thx.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The fear of the combined estate and gift tax exemption, which currently stands at $5.12 million, dropping back to $1 million has been allayed. The terror of a crackdown on "dynasty trusts" has evaporated, too.

As the end of 2012 came closer and closer, financial planners were up to their necks transferring wealth to clients' descendants for generations. A Dynasty Trust will keep assets out of the tax system for hundreds of years - or even in perpetuity, depending on the state where the trust is created.

How to apply the tax burden fairly? I don't know. But it just seems that those with the big bucks will always have their ways of keeping what they consider theirs.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

still a great concept


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

bill_vincent wrote,

"The point is that there is nothing special about multiplication that is inherently fairer than any other mathematical operation. That is a false assumption that underlies most "flat" tax proposals."

Surprise, surprise, but I disagree. Nothing could be fairer than each entity (person or corp.) paying the same percentage of their income. Those who don't make as much pay less, and those who make more, PAY more.

But again, there's nothing inherently "fairer"' about using multiplication. Why isn't is fairer for each person to simply pay the same amount, for example? We all pay the same amount for government fees for things like dirver's licenses. What could be fairer than that? Why should people who work harder and make more money be penalized? Do you think government fees should all work that way, too -- a driver's license should be more expensive if you make more, using a percentage of your income?

Or, you say those who make less should pay less, and those who make more should pay more because that's a fair concept. Ok, but why used multiplication to determine the amount? Using a log function produces the exact same effect, but is more progressive. Or how about square root? That's less progressive.

What's special about multiplication that makes it fair, while all other mathematical operations are unfair?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

the problem is people confuse equality and fairness


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Well gee, cob, for once I agree with you.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Why isn't is fairer for each person to simply pay the same amount, for example?

That's elemetary. Someone making 20,000.00 a year and someone making 2,000,000.00 a year-- should both be required to pay 20K a year? That's about as UNfair as it could be. Using a percentage as a flat rate, both pay the same sized chunk of their paycheck, in relation to its size. THAT'S fair.

What's special about multiplication that makes it fair

Just answered.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The way it's been explained to me, bill, is that the same rate, while it sounds fair, puts a larger burden on those that make very little.

Using your 20K income example, if the rate were 10%, that person would pay $2K a year in federal taxes, leaving him/her $18K a year for living expenses. If that person only makes $20K a year, chances are good that he/she is having a very hard time paying for simple living expenses: housing, food, transportation, medical, clothing. So paying even just $2K in taxes is going to be large part of their income.

In comparison, the person making $2 million dollars a year will pay $200K in taxes which is certainly a lot of money compared to the $2K that the other person paid. But because that person makes so much, he/she still has 1.8 million dollars left to live on.

So even though the rate (10%) is the same, the effect on the person's ability to live and make ends meet is very different.

I'm guessing that is why over the years, our politicians decided to exempt the lowest levels of income from federal taxes.

I can certainly understand the desire to ensure that people have some skin in the game by paying "something"; I guess the amount of "something" is what would be determined. In the meantime, as many people have pointed out, these non-paying citizens do pay plenty of sales tax, gasoline tax, and other fees as part of their every day life.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The Founding Fathers understood that progressive rates were the way to go. Interesting what people need to forget to maintain their worldview!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

If you need more money to life the lifestyle you want, the flat tax sounds like a great incentive to do what it takes to make more money.

What is "left over" after taxes is no one's business.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"The Founding Fathers understood that progressive rates were the way to go. "

I believe the 16th Amendment decided that, unless we are talking about two different things.

Demi, I do not think that I could ever agree with your theories on taxes. I believe that the wealthy can afford to pay a higher percentage. It is not hurting them. While it would be detrimental to the poor. I suppose it is time for me to just agree to disagree.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I hear what you're saying demi, but I wonder that anyone would ever think of it that way.

I personally don't "stop earning" because I think that I'm going to get pushed into the next bracket.

Sure in the flat tax, I get to keep 90 cents out of every dollar that I earn. But in the progressive tax, it's isn't so much more burdensome:

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly
10% Bracket $0 - $17,400
15% Bracket $17,400 - $70,700
25% Bracket $70,700 - $142,700
28% Bracket $142,700 - $217,450
33% Bracket $217,450 - $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350

I pay the extra tax on top of what I earn. So for example, I am paying 25% only on the income above $70,700 (since I file jointly). I am not paying 25% on my entire income. (And I know you know this, explaining this for others.)

So at no point do I say "hey, I better stop earning so that I don't kick over into the higher bracket". Cause for every dollar over $142,700, I only pay 3% more than I would have otherwise.

So I don't see the incentive to earn more just because I am now in a flat tax situation. I'm always gonna want to earn more if I can.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 17, 13 at 21:41

Posted by WxDano
"The Founding Fathers understood that progressive rates were the way to go. Interesting what people need to forget to maintain their worldview!"-------------------They would have been awfully, awfully old.

The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, its history actually goes back even further. During the Civil War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state. The 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State. For additional information on taxation in the United States


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

BTW, Esh, thanks for confirming my stances, you are a careful reader and articulated my stance about a flat tax.

*

"I'm always gonna want to earn more if I can."

--Well, that's true of a lot of people.

But--there are a lot of people that simply do not need or want any more money, do not want to take the risks associated with making more money (sometimes losing what they have by investing) to go to the wasteful government, and there are people that do not need or want anymore money that simply want the government to understand there isn't always a never ending spigot of money.

The geese are getting tired, they've got enough to live on, and they don't want to pay more taxes as long as there is so much waste and fraud, and as long as almost half of this country pays no federal income tax at all.

I've always been a proponent of a flat income tax, no deductions at all--regardless of the source of income--even those on public assistance.

I think it would make everyone on a much more level playing field, put everyone with "skin in the game" and simplify taxes.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The Founding Fathers understood that progressive rates were the way to go. Interesting what people need to forget to maintain their worldview!

Don't even go there, bookemdano. 2nd amendment.

The way it's been explained to me, bill, is that the same rate, while it sounds fair, puts a larger burden on those that make very little.

Esh, I've heard that argument, as well. I don't know if as now, there should be some kind of cut off for the indigent. But think about it-- don't you think that taking 200,000.00 from the other guy in my example wouldn't also put a hurting on his finances?


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I believe the 16th Amendment decided that, unless we are talking about two different things.

No, the Founding Fathers advocated progressive taxation (or laws in lieu of taxation). Jefferson. Franklin, Paine. Madison. Those types.

Jefferson:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Also Madison, albeit not taxation directly but laws:

The great object should be to combat the evil: (1) by establishing political equality among us all; (2) by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by the immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; (3) by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort."

Wise Ben:

…as a Tax, and perhaps the most equal of all Taxes, since it depreciated in the Hands of the Holders of the Money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the Sums they hold and the Time they held it, which is generally in proportion to Mens Wealth. (Letter to Thomas Ruston, October 9, 1780)

Of course I have more examples but that is quite enough. Let's not cause any more cognitive dissonance than necessary!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

But think about it-- don't you think that taking 200,000.00 from the other guy in my example wouldn't also put a hurting on his finances?

Not when he has 1.8 million left over for housing, food, transportation and medical. I think he could live pretty well on that and not be "hurting". Depending on how he chooses to live, of course. On the other hand, living on $18,000 is pretty tough for most people even if you are very frugal. Toss in a medical emergency and you are out of luck.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Funny how NOW, all of the sudden you listen to what the founding fathers had to say.

Esh-- ever hear the axiom the more you make, the more it costs to live? Trust me when I tell you-- Losing 200K will still hurt that person, even though he's got more than enough for TEN families.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Funny how NOW, all of the sudden you listen to what the founding fathers had to say.

You are making it up. What's in it for you to make things up about what I listen to? And why on earth am I reading what you write?????


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Because you know I'm telling it like it is. You don't give a CRAP what the founding fathers OR the Bill of Rights has to say about the 2nd Amendment, but now it and the words of the founding fathers are golden.

Give me a freaken break. BUSTED. Bookem, dano.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 0:38

Posted by WxDano

NIce try at taking things out of context to float bogus rhetoric.
I filled in enough to make the intended point clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
Jefferson-----THE WRITING IS ON PROPERY---------------------------:The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one.-------- Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.--- The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Madison, albeit not taxation directly but laws:----THE WRITING DEALS WITH POITICAL PARTIES-------Madison also was active in the ratification effort, collaborating with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in writing The Federalist Papers, a penetrating analysis of the Constitution (narrative). In Virginia, Madison was effective in countering the anti-Federalism of Patrick Henry.

In a short essay that appeared in January 1792, Madison wrote:

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. ------- The great object should be to combat the evil: (1) by establishing political equality among us all; (2) by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by the immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; (3) by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort."--
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Wise Ben:-----------THIS IS FROM AN ARTICLE ON THE NEW CONTINENTAL MONEY----------- The people were heartily tired of a currency which figured so ridiculously in a common transaction of trade as the above transaction example. They preferred to see it disappear in perfect annihilation. There was not a shadow of a chance of its ever being redeemed, the finances of the Confederacy wore in such a wretched state.The people submitted quietly to the loss of $200,000,000, and thereby exhibited one of the most glorious pictures of true patriotism to be found in the annals of the race. It was a great debt created by the representatives of the people; it was borrowed from the people; and it was canceled, by annihilation, with the tacit consent of the people. It had performed for them, and us, a most blessed work. It had fed, clothed, armed, and paid troops, and fitted out ships, for the defense of the liberties we now enjoy"With this paper," wrote the philosophic Franklin, from Passy, in France, in the autumn of 1780" "With this paper, without taxes the first three years, they fought and baffled one of the most powerful nations in Europe. They hoped, notwithstanding its quantity, to have kept up the value of their paper. In this they were mistaken. It depreciated gradually. But this depreciation though in some circumstances inconvenient, has had the general good and great effect of operating ---as a Tax, and perhaps the most equal of all Taxes, since it depreciated in the Hands of the Holders of the Money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the Sums they hold and the Time they held it, which is generally in proportion to Mens Wealth.---Thus, so much of the public debt has been, in this manner, insensibly paid that the remainder does not exceed six millions sterling…….. In the meantime the vigor of their military operations is again revived, and they are now as able, with respect to money to carry on the war as they were at the beginning, and much more so with regard to troops, arms, and discipline. It is also an increasing nation, sixty thousand children having been born annually in the United States since the beginning of the war" (Letter to Thomas Ruston, October 9, 1780)
----------------------------------------------------------

Of course I have more examples but that is quite enough. Let's not cause any more cognitive dissonance than necessary!-----------------You have squat unless you call presenting quoting out of context to present a lie, more of your usual.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Esh-- ever hear the axiom the more you make, the more it costs to live? Trust me when I tell you-- Losing 200K will still hurt that person, even though he's got more than enough for TEN families.

Sure he's probably living in much more expensive housing than the other guy, driving a more expensive car (the other guy might be taking public transportation), has a better job so his clothes are more expensive, he's eating in restaurants more often ... all lifestyle choices that he could cut down on if he wanted to and still have a comfortable existence. I'm sure he is spending a lot more on everyday expenses than the other guy, but if he had to, he could still live on that 1.8 million.

The guy with the 18K for living could find it very tough to live in a safe place, eat nutritious foods, and afford any extra education to better himself. He'll most likely be stuck in poverty without the means to pull himself up because he's trying to stay alive.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

We could go a long, long way to improving the Federal budget/deficit picture by putting a sales tax on buying / selling stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. A fraction of a penny a share, every transaction, would do wonders.

As well, I'm encouraged to see that the G20 is taking a really hard look at international companies that somehow earn all their profits in the Caymans.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

We could go a long, long way to improving the Federal budget/deficit picture by putting a sales tax on buying / selling stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.

Class warfare! Job killer! Obama hates us! Deficits!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I own a 40 plus acre rental property with a farm house, pole barn and 5 mobile homes (collected $36,000 in rent last year, plus $15,000 from logging), but pay only $2,900 in property taxes annually.

My neighbors across the road own a newer home on a little over an acre and pay over $7,000 in property taxes due to the value of the home they're financing. They have little if any equity, yet I've owned my property free and clear since I was in my 20s.

I have a view of the valley, mountains, ponds and woods, yet they have a view of the backside of another neighbor's house and my polebarn. (and often commercial construction equipment, tractor trailers, construction trailers etc)

Some of my tenants and some of their kids are a huge drain on the school system, Medicaid and other unfunded state mandates, yet my neighbors have no kids and receive no benefits I don't receive.

I receive some services they don't receive as I'm friends with, or have customers, employees, or relatives of employees that work for the town and county.
Doesn't seem fair, but that's just the way has been, the way it is and the way it will be in the future.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Doesn't seem fair, but that's just the way has been, the way it is and the way it will be in the future.

Yes, that's the way it has been, that's the way it is, and that's the way it will be.......but the disparity was never this extreme in the past. There's where the problem lies. At this rate, we'll be just another Nicaragua or Honduras or Guatemala....just another Banana Republic with a bunch of landed gentry like yourself and then all us tenants busy draining the system. There won't be any middle-class neighbors struggling to get along. That's the way it will be, for sure.

-Ron-


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

The guy with the 18K for living could find it very tough to live in a safe place, eat nutritious foods, and afford any extra education to better himself. He'll most likely be stuck in poverty without the means to pull himself up because he's trying to stay alive.

IF he decides that this is his lot in life, and just accepts it instead of trying to better himself, you're right. Meet the career welfare recipient. I've BEEN there. Like I said in another thread-- I spit the silver spoon out when I got out of the service. And a couple of years later, my father passed away, which sealed the deal. At one point, when I first moved to Maine, I made just over that the first year ($18.7K) and had a wife and 4 kids to support. But I wasn't about to accept that this was the way things were going to be, and just kept digging, taking advantage of ANY opportunity that came my way, no matter how small, and made the most of it. That was only about 15 years ago. People can ALWAYS better themselves..... IF they WANT to. Those who've seen my posts in tile forums will tell you-- I have a signature line in most of them that's a quote from Henry Ford:
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're probably right."

I really believe that, because I've lived it myself.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

If you can't make it in this country, you can't make it anywhere.

People make choices every day.

If you're not mentally or physically incapacitated (and even those people can have good earning potential in some situations) or you're spending your time caring for someone in that situation, then you are a product of your decisions, after your are an adult.

People that complain about not having enough and yet have time to complain about not having enough are not doing everything they can.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

How long ago were you making 18.7K a year? 20 years ago? The cost of things have increased, of course.

IF he decides that this is his lot in life, and just accepts it instead of trying to better himself, you're right.

There are some individuals that despite the desire to better themselves, still can't pull themselves out of a hole to do it. It's not always for lack of trying.

I'm not going to go on and on about this. I was just trying to explain the concept of how "equal" rates can mean a harsher burden on one individual over another.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

If you can't make it in this country, you can't make it anywhere.

People make choices every day.

Do share your amazing wisdom over in the 'mobility' thread. You may want to compose a letter to the author of the essay that the 'mobility' thread is based on as well. Let us know what he says about your amazing wisdom!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

My Dad used to say, whenever we complained about taxes " If you didn't make so much you wouldn't have to pay so much so quit complaining about your salary being too much"

This post was edited by chase on Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 16:28


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Do share your amazing wisdom over in the 'mobility' thread. You may want to compose a letter to the author of the essay that the 'mobility' thread is based on as well.

Why should we? Most likely just as thick as you. Why waste time on someone who doesn't want to hear it... who'd rather complain and cry about it.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 17:22

Posted by demifloyd.

"People make choices every day.

If you're not mentally or physically incapacitated (and even those people can have good earning potential in some situations) or you're spending your time caring for someone in that situation, then you are a product of your decisions, after your are an adult."--------------Does this include the 200 lb welfare mothers who moan about not being able to feed their children without food stamps?

This post was edited by RpR_ on Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 17:43


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Thats the stuff!

If you aren't getting ahead, no matter how hard you work, how many college classes you paid for, how many job applications you put in, how many times you've moved your family, well...

Shut up! There must be something wrong you're doing!!! You can't possibly be living within your means, saving, making good decisions!!! You clearly aren't working hard enough because you have time to complain!!!!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Well, I knew a (formerly) young woman who made the right choices. She was raised on one of these SoCal reservations. She's very beautiful (even at 50 now). Raised two daughters in a reservation trailer park (mostly on welfare). She finally snagged herself a rich dude and now lives out on a peninsula on a Chesapeake inlet. She's got an olympic size pool, a tennis court, and a stable with horses. Good looks and the right decisions make a great upward mobility.

-Ron-


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

There must be something wrong you're doing!!!

David, now that you mention it..... What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? If something doesn't work, try something else, because yes-- you ARE doing something wrong. Might be the right thing at the wrong time, or vice versa-- but one way or the other, what you're doing obviously isn't working!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Bill, I know a dozen people who are 50-60 years old, made good decisions, don't drink or smoke or chase women, work 50-60 hour weeks, bought into the idea of owning a home, some of them with masters and doctorate degrees with really good, well-established careers, who went from a decent middle class life down to really struggling on $35,000 a year. This started a few years before the big Bush Recession. Places like pharmaceutical companies laid off 200,000 research scientists and staff. What happened to them? In the recession, they ended up selling their homes, live in apartments or condos, took their kids out of good schools and put them in live-at-home community colleges, and so on. That was just to survive.

And I've posted enough so that forum readers know what happens when you're in the individual medical insurance market and get some nasty chronic disease in this country.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

David-- I've known some who had masters and PhD's, and who didn't have the smarts required to tie their shoes. That doesn't impress me, unless we're talking about their chosen field. Degrees just mean they know how to study. Although they DO show ambition, they tell me nothing about survival skills or common sense-- what some might refer to as street smarts. We each have our strengths. But if what you're doing isn't working, even if it's through no fault of your own, you do something else!! Hell, when my family's company first went under in 1990, I even sold cars for a while. I applied to several police depts. in the area, but no one was hiring, so I just got put on waiting lists. Point is, I did whatever it took, even when that meant giving up my house, and moving to Florida right after Hurricane Andrew to get back to the kind of work I knew well. When I could, I moved back up here, and took the first tile job I could find..... for 12.00 an hour. But I moved up, and KEPT moving up, every chance I got. Don't get me wrong-- I really do feel for these professionals who worked for these companies for decades, and then got cut loose, with no where to go. I know the feeling! But you don't have time to cry about it, because the world's not going to wait for you. In spite of the thread OP, this world isn't fair, and if you wait for it to be, you're going to get run over and left behind. You need to get back up, and MAKE your way. HOWEVER it happens.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

If only there were more men like you, bill vincent, and more women like rob.

YOU get it.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"YOU get it"

No one except the conservatives "get it" in the Gospel according to Demi. Ouch, that stings.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

NO, a lot of liberals get it--at least those liberals that don't whine and liberals that take personal responsibility seriously.

See, Frank, you just don't succeed when you try to speak for someone else.

Try speaking for yourself--you can't speak for me.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Frank, I know there are alot of liberals who "get it", and I know there are alot of conservatives who don't. This is something that crosses all lines-- social, economic, poitical-- no boundries.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

No, Demi, I was speaking for myself when I insinuated that YOU don't get it. I guess that YOU just did not understand that was what I was saying.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Posted by frank_il z5Illinois (My Page) on
Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 21:49

No, Demi, I was speaking for myself when I insinuated that YOU don't get it. I guess that YOU just did not understand that was what I was saying.

*

Well, that's certainly not how it read.

Here's the pertinent part of your post that caused me to post what I did:

"No one except the conservatives "get it" in the Gospel according to Demi."

The fact of the matter is you don't know what the Gospel according to Demi is, and in fact that is not true that "no one except the conservatives "get it."

I specifically refuted that contention you made about my "gospel" in my post at
21:40.

To quote you, Frank, "Ouch, that stings."

;)


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"I know there are alot of liberals who "get it""

Odd that you stressed about two conservatives getting it, and insinuating that us poor liberals are just lost.

As for my statement about the "Gospel according to Demi", one of these days I will explain to you what a metaphor is.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Posted by frank_il z5Illinois (My Page) on
Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 22:04

"I know there are alot of liberals who "get it""

Odd that you stressed about two conservatives getting it, and insinuating that us poor liberals are just lost.

As for my statement about the "Gospel according to Demi", one of these days I will explain to you what a metaphor is.

*

Oh, Frank, you indeed don't know me well--certainly not well enough to speak for me.

Here you go again--accusing me of being "stressed."
What an odd thing to say.
Why are you making your posts about me, personally?

I don't have a need to insinuate anything.
I full well know what a metaphor is.
Perhaps you should learn how to use it.

There is no need to try to pick a fight with me, I'm not buying.

Find someone else to be condescending to and attempt to speak for if you don't want to discuss the topics.

Good night!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

You do what you gotta do. I've checked out groceries, done ER admitting, waited tables, cleaned houses, tended bar, sold real estate and on and on. There's no such thing as "between jobs". Someone's hiring. I'm not ashamed to say that any legal work is okay in a pinch.

My preference was paralegal. Sometimes you take what you can; didn't wish to move so I made the situation work. If I'd been single I would have relocated. Instead I changed careers. It's been liberating.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Find someone else to be condescending to and attempt to speak for if you don't want to discuss the topics.

Victim card: right on cue!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Oh, your comment about me is right on cue wx whatever!~

Don't get too excited.

I'll go back to ignoring you until you have something to say other than smarmy comments.

I thought I'd throw you a bone!~


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I'll go back to ignoring you until you have something to say other than smarmy comments.

Just like you said you weren't going to post your fake outrage, victimization, and all the other standard tactics here anymore. What happened? How come you haven't gone away in a little huff? Are we to think that your word isn't good?

Oh, wait: you are practicing composing a correction to the Nobel Laureate. Got it.

That is: words - not intended to convey facts or ideas.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Posted by WxDano none (My Page) on
Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 22:42

I'll go back to ignoring you until you have something to say other than smarmy comments.

Just like you said you weren't going to post your fake outrage, victimization, and all the other standard tactics here anymore. What happened? How come you haven't gone away in a little huff? Are we to think that your word isn't good?

Oh, wait: you are practicing composing a correction to the Nobel Laureate. Got it.

That is: words - not intended to convey facts or ideas.

***

You got your bone--begging for more won't do you any good!

This post was edited by demifloyd on Mon, Feb 18, 13 at 22:53


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

No need to project any pathology on me. Unless you are doing Internet Performance Art - in which case your pathologies make me LOLz! I LOLz'ed at your comedy! Let your twitter followers share in the LOLz!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

"You got your bone--begging for more won't do you any good!"

Look at that exclamation point. Someone is thrilled that people are talking about her.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

No, I hate to disappoint some of you, but I must confess that I am perplexed that some of you have nothing better to do than to constantly insult, taunt, and try to get my attention in some way or another, and that of other conservatives.

It's not enough to let someone to share their opinions if they don't agree with you, is it? The taunts and insults must keep coming if one does not agree with some.

I was feeling charitable tonight, but don't get too used to the attention--scroll on by is the usual order.

Peace Out.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I must confess that I am perplexed that some of you have nothing better to do than to constantly insult, taunt, and try to get my attention in some way or another,

Oh, yes: victim card. Being bullied. Right on cue. I wonder why you didn't haul out that you don't have time for this. Unless you only haul that out for a different escape.

Anyhoo, your fainting couch is right over there. And your drama coach is on line two. You should ask for a refund.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Well, sucking it up and getting on with it is what everybody does following having careers that were trashed. But getting ____ doesn't mean we have to stay quiet.

Its still true the opportunities for economic advancement are rapidly dwindling in this country, a fact that shouldn't be ignored. Trickle down economics has been nothing but a means of massive income redistribution upwards. We've just been ripped off for trillions by baling out the banks, trillions in tax cuts for the wealthiest, trillions in wars that turned out to be bogus threats of WMD's, and now one party is pitching "austerity" to further cut into the opportunities that are there. Gut the schools, police, fire, education, roads, and pay back the debt that all these people racked up with their scams. I think I'll keep complaining.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

But, David, if enough people complain and they complain loud enough and there are studies proving what is happening in this country and the divide continues to grow, the masses just might start to catch on to the lunacy of trickle down economics.

And for some people that would be a disaster 'cause they might have to pay an extra dollar or two in taxes.

Therefore, if you dare complain, you're just a lazy-good-for-nothing-liberal-taker and you are the problem. At least according to a certain camp.

I am right there with you complaining. And I was one of the lucky ones. I was not drastically affected by the recession. I kept my job and my salary. Even my bonuses are back to what they were before. And I'm still complaining! Because it's not right what is happening in this country. And I don't mean to me.

On the social mobility thread, lionheart said:
I think laziness is rare - it's too easy of an answer.

Yes, it is. It's what they always whip out when anyone starts to complain about the growing divide in this country.

Anyhoo, your fainting couch is right over there. And your drama coach is on line two. You should ask for a refund.

Now that is funny!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

TIme wasted complaining is time that could be spent productively doing what you can to advance yourself. I understand about bi*ching. I do enough of it myself. But WAY too many think that'll get them further than trying to advance themselves, rather than IN ADDITION to trying to advance one's self. 6 months ago, I let go of a kid who went to school with my son, and has gone from one job to another, and one trade to another. He worked with us for just over a year, which was about 11 months too long. I expect that within a couple of months, I shouldn't have to tell someone what to do, that they can figure out how to stay busy without my having to lead them by the hand. This guy would stand in one spot until given a specific task, and then once it was done, he'd go back to standing there. The ONLY time he'd move, otherwise, is if his cell phone rang, and then he'd move off a few feet so he could have his conversation in private. More than once I took this kid aside and talked to him, trying to make him understand the importance of showing a little initiative and ambition. The last time, he actually had the balls to tell me that if he were to get a raise he might show a little more ambition. I told him first that if he were anyone else, he'd be gone right then and there, but that maybe if he were to show a little more ambition, he just might get that raise. Nothing. In fact, I gave him a small tool called a margin trowel when he first started working for me. I noticed about two weeks after this conversation that he kept using mine and Adam's (my son's), so I asked him where HIS was. He told me I don't pay him enough to bring it with him. At first I thought he was joking, because NO ONE could be THAT ignorant and stupid to say something like that to their boss. I was wrong. He was gone the end of that week. If instead of complaining, he'd just done his job-- that's all it would've taken-- But instead, he thought it was highly unfair that he, my son, and I weren't splitting the checks I received into thirds, and as a result, all he excelled at was complaining.
And being jobless.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Wow, that sounds like a terrible worker, bill!


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

He was. And what's more, he took advantage of his friendship with my son, who is as ambitious a kid as I'[ve ever seen. This is a kid who, at the height of the recession we just came through, bought a 3 family house that was about to collapse on itself, completely renovated it, and got it rented, and this kid is no slumlord. In addition, he picked the trade up faster than I've ever seen anyone pick it up, and pushed, to the point he was pushing ME. Now, he's a full 50% partner, and this friend of his, couldn't understand why Adam was a full partner, and he couldn't be.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

I have to wonder if they will remain friends Bill, they sound like each of them operates by a totally different standard in life, what could they have in common, besides a few shared experiences during their high school years?
The day high school is over, the links of commonality are generally also over for most kids.

Imagine how that kid's parents would feel if they ever knew the real story about the history behind his hire with you. The one other than the story he gave them, of course.

Of course, those poor parents might have a pretty darn good grasp of the sad truth already, without knowing a single, factual detail.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

Boy, Bill, you were too patient. With that kid's attitude, I'd fired him in a day.


 o
RE: "We just can’t agree on what fairness means."

LIly-- Especially during the hard times we've been having, I hate to fire anyone. and this kid got alot more leeway than most because he was a friend of my son's. But he reached my breaking point in a big way, and it was either fire him, or invest in Maalox stock.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here