Seattle Government Becomes 'Robin Hood': Steal From The Rich To Give To 'Homeless'

[martybegan]

how about you open up your wallet commie cuck?

Don't live in Seattle. But if I did, and I owned a company making more than $20 million a year, I certainly would.

Why go straight to the personal insult? Is that really your default? Are you nor intelligent enough to make your point without it? Or did mommy just not hug you enough when you were Baby?

Because you say "only $20 a month" when you forget about all the other freaking taxes and fees they already pay.

it's always "just a bit more", "why are you being so greedy" and "why can't you help" being mewled by people who could never make it in the private world, and are nothing more than government leeches.

The real question is why can't these people understand basic economics. When you punish a company by how many people they employ, and in the end they want to cut costs, you make headcount a TARGET for cost savings.

So people get laid off, and you lose their income tax money, their sales tax money, you get people leaving, and thus lower property values (and thus property taxes) and then the government morons will blame the companies instead of their own greedy cocksucking selves.

And useful idiots like you cheer and applause along because you get someone else to pay for something you want.

Who's forgetting? I just sold my retail business, I know all about the taxes. I don't see this as unreasonable at all.

LOL.

giving up your booth at a swap meet isn't owning a retail business.

Why? Is that what your version is?

Nice :"retort":

try again rook.

 

[Crepitus]

Don't live in Seattle. But if I did, and I owned a company making more than $20 million a year, I certainly would.

Why go straight to the personal insult? Is that really your default? Are you nor intelligent enough to make your point without it? Or did mommy just not hug you enough when you were Baby?

Because you say "only $20 a month" when you forget about all the other freaking taxes and fees they already pay.

it's always "just a bit more", "why are you being so greedy" and "why can't you help" being mewled by people who could never make it in the private world, and are nothing more than government leeches.

The real question is why can't these people understand basic economics. When you punish a company by how many people they employ, and in the end they want to cut costs, you make headcount a TARGET for cost savings.

So people get laid off, and you lose their income tax money, their sales tax money, you get people leaving, and thus lower property values (and thus property taxes) and then the government morons will blame the companies instead of their own greedy cocksucking selves.

And useful idiots like you cheer and applause along because you get someone else to pay for something you want.

Who's forgetting? I just sold my retail business, I know all about the taxes. I don't see this as unreasonable at all.

LOL.

giving up your booth at a swap meet isn't owning a retail business.

Why? Is that what your version is?

Nice :"retort":

try again rook.

"Retort"?

That was dismissal. You ain't worth the effort troll.

Now bugger off.

 

[martybegan]

Because you say "only $20 a month" when you forget about all the other freaking taxes and fees they already pay.

it's always "just a bit more", "why are you being so greedy" and "why can't you help" being mewled by people who could never make it in the private world, and are nothing more than government leeches.

The real question is why can't these people understand basic economics. When you punish a company by how many people they employ, and in the end they want to cut costs, you make headcount a TARGET for cost savings.

So people get laid off, and you lose their income tax money, their sales tax money, you get people leaving, and thus lower property values (and thus property taxes) and then the government morons will blame the companies instead of their own greedy cocksucking selves.

And useful idiots like you cheer and applause along because you get someone else to pay for something you want.

Who's forgetting? I just sold my retail business, I know all about the taxes. I don't see this as unreasonable at all.

LOL.

giving up your booth at a swap meet isn't owning a retail business.

Why? Is that what your version is?

Nice :"retort":

try again rook.

"Retort"?

That was dismissal. You ain't worth the effort troll.

Now bugger off.

That's comical, you cheap,dime store hack.

And i notice you didn't comment on the further post I added with actual facts about how they plan to spend the $$.

It's good reading, i doubt you would understand it.

 

[Crepitus]

Who's forgetting? I just sold my retail business, I know all about the taxes. I don't see this as unreasonable at all.

LOL.

giving up your booth at a swap meet isn't owning a retail business.

Why? Is that what your version is?

Nice :"retort":

try again rook.

"Retort"?

That was dismissal. You ain't worth the effort troll.

Now bugger off.

That's comical, you cheap,dime store hack.

And i notice you didn't comment on the further post I added with actual facts about how they plan to spend the $$.

It's good reading, i doubt you would understand it.

Are you still fluttering around here? Persistent little bug ain't ya.

 

[Darkwind]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

$20 a month? On companies that profit more than $20 million a year?

Oh the horror!!!

Maybe you should read this.

The Case Against Liberal Compassion

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Latinate word “compassion” means, literally, “suffering together with another”—it’s the “feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it.” Note that suffering together does not mean suffering identically. The compassionate person does not become hungry when he meets or thinks about a hungry person, or sick in the presence of the sick. Rather, compassion means we are affected by others’ suffering, a distress that motivates us to alleviate it. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Emile, “When the strength of an expansive soul makes me identify myself with my fellow, and I feel that I am, so to speak, in him, it is in order not to suffer that I do not want him to suffer. I am interested in him for love of myself.”

We can see the problem. The whole point of compassion is for empathizers to feel better when awareness of another’s suffering provokes unease. But this ultimate purpose does not guarantee that empathizees will fare better. Barbara Oakley, co-editor of the volume Pathological Altruism, defines its subject as “altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm.” Surprises and accidents happen, of course. The pathology of pathological altruism is not the failure to salve every wound. It is, rather, the indifference—blithe, heedless, smug, or solipsistic—to the fact and consequences of those failures, just as long as the empathizer is accruing compassion points that he and others will admire. As philosophy professor David Schmidtz has said, “If you’re trying to prove your heart is in the right place, it isn’t.”

Maybe you should stop copy/pasting from rwnj websites and try thinking for yourself for a change.

I posted a link to an academic article. It is YOUR problem that you don't like the conclusions (if you even read it), but I find it hilarious that you, a progressive, have the gall to ask others to think when lemming is in your DNA and thinking isn't something your ilk is good at.

 

[Snouter]

99% of homeless are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or euthanized.

 

[Wyatt earp]

how about you open up your wallet commie cuck?

Don't live in Seattle. But if I did, and I owned a company making more than $20 million a year, I certainly would.

Why go straight to the personal insult? Is that really your default? Are you nor intelligent enough to make your point without it? Or did mommy just not hug you enough when you were Baby?

Because you say "only $20 a month" when you forget about all the other freaking taxes and fees they already pay.

it's always "just a bit more", "why are you being so greedy" and "why can't you help" being mewled by people who could never make it in the private world, and are nothing more than government leeches.

The real question is why can't these people understand basic economics. When you punish a company by how many people they employ, and in the end they want to cut costs, you make headcount a TARGET for cost savings.

So people get laid off, and you lose their income tax money, their sales tax money, you get people leaving, and thus lower property values (and thus property taxes) and then the government morons will blame the companies instead of their own greedy cocksucking selves.

And useful idiots like you cheer and applause along because you get someone else to pay for something you want.

Who's forgetting? I just sold my retail business, I know all about the taxes. I don't see this as unreasonable at all.

There’s no fucking way you ever had a business let alone one that would be sellable. There’s not a single successful business owner that gets by with just saying yeah it’s only 20 bucks here and there. I’m good with paying more to the government because.

Did your fictitional business also pay your employees 15 bucks an hour to sweep floors? Higher taxes are no problem? Your full of shit. You’ve never owned a business, let alone a successful one.

Lol, like your opinion matters fer shit. Yer justa low-life internet troll.

No your a troll and a 14 year old kid...

 

[Political Junky]

99% of homeless are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or euthanized.

Hitler believed they should be euthanized, too.

 

[rightwinger]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

I feel so much compassion for rich people

Everyone picks on them

 

[Claudette]

Wonder how long it will take those morons to find out over taxing business isn't a good idea.

Also wonder how many of those businesses will leave for greener pastures??

The city fathers should drive the homeless out of the city. I'm sure those people could find another city to haunt.

 

[Claudette]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

I feel so much compassion for rich people

Everyone picks on them

Nah. Invite the homeless to your house. They can shit, piss, throw up and leave wine bottles and nasty ass blankets all over your yard and house. Nice folks. You should be more than happy to take care of them. LOL

 

[Crepitus]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

$20 a month? On companies that profit more than $20 million a year?

Oh the horror!!!

Maybe you should read this.

The Case Against Liberal Compassion

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Latinate word “compassion” means, literally, “suffering together with another”—it’s the “feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it.” Note that suffering together does not mean suffering identically. The compassionate person does not become hungry when he meets or thinks about a hungry person, or sick in the presence of the sick. Rather, compassion means we are affected by others’ suffering, a distress that motivates us to alleviate it. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Emile, “When the strength of an expansive soul makes me identify myself with my fellow, and I feel that I am, so to speak, in him, it is in order not to suffer that I do not want him to suffer. I am interested in him for love of myself.”

We can see the problem. The whole point of compassion is for empathizers to feel better when awareness of another’s suffering provokes unease. But this ultimate purpose does not guarantee that empathizees will fare better. Barbara Oakley, co-editor of the volume Pathological Altruism, defines its subject as “altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm.” Surprises and accidents happen, of course. The pathology of pathological altruism is not the failure to salve every wound. It is, rather, the indifference—blithe, heedless, smug, or solipsistic—to the fact and consequences of those failures, just as long as the empathizer is accruing compassion points that he and others will admire. As philosophy professor David Schmidtz has said, “If you’re trying to prove your heart is in the right place, it isn’t.”

Maybe you should stop copy/pasting from rwnj websites and try thinking for yourself for a change.

I posted a link to an academic article. It is YOUR problem that you don't like the conclusions (if you even read it), but I find it hilarious that you, a progressive, have the gall to ask others to think when lemming is in your DNA and thinking isn't something your ilk is good at.

Lol @ "academic article".

It's a RWNJ hit piece.

 

[Crepitus]

Don't live in Seattle. But if I did, and I owned a company making more than $20 million a year, I certainly would.

Why go straight to the personal insult? Is that really your default? Are you nor intelligent enough to make your point without it? Or did mommy just not hug you enough when you were Baby?

Because you say "only $20 a month" when you forget about all the other freaking taxes and fees they already pay.

it's always "just a bit more", "why are you being so greedy" and "why can't you help" being mewled by people who could never make it in the private world, and are nothing more than government leeches.

The real question is why can't these people understand basic economics. When you punish a company by how many people they employ, and in the end they want to cut costs, you make headcount a TARGET for cost savings.

So people get laid off, and you lose their income tax money, their sales tax money, you get people leaving, and thus lower property values (and thus property taxes) and then the government morons will blame the companies instead of their own greedy cocksucking selves.

And useful idiots like you cheer and applause along because you get someone else to pay for something you want.

Who's forgetting? I just sold my retail business, I know all about the taxes. I don't see this as unreasonable at all.

There’s no fucking way you ever had a business let alone one that would be sellable. There’s not a single successful business owner that gets by with just saying yeah it’s only 20 bucks here and there. I’m good with paying more to the government because.

Did your fictitional business also pay your employees 15 bucks an hour to sweep floors? Higher taxes are no problem? Your full of shit. You’ve never owned a business, let alone a successful one.

Lol, like your opinion matters fer shit. Yer justa low-life internet troll.

No your a troll and a 14 year old kid...

Lol, guess again.

 

[martybegan]

LOL.

giving up your booth at a swap meet isn't owning a retail business.

Why? Is that what your version is?

Nice :"retort":

try again rook.

"Retort"?

That was dismissal. You ain't worth the effort troll.

Now bugger off.

That's comical, you cheap,dime store hack.

And i notice you didn't comment on the further post I added with actual facts about how they plan to spend the $$.

It's good reading, i doubt you would understand it.

Are you still fluttering around here? Persistent little bug ain't ya.

And you still aren't really responding to anything, just showing more and more how stupid you are.

 

[rightwinger]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

I feel so much compassion for rich people

Everyone picks on them

Nah. Invite the homeless to your house. They can shit, piss, throw up and leave wine bottles and nasty ass blankets all over your yard and house. Nice folks. You should be more than happy to take care of them. LOL

Like it or not, we have homeless in our midst

Pretending they don’t exist or shooting them into the shadows is the preferred solution of conservatives

But as JFK said, If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

 

[Claudette]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

I feel so much compassion for rich people

Everyone picks on them

Nah. Invite the homeless to your house. They can shit, piss, throw up and leave wine bottles and nasty ass blankets all over your yard and house. Nice folks. You should be more than happy to take care of them. LOL

Like it or not, we have homeless in our midst

Pretending they don’t exist or shooting them into the shadows is the preferred solution of conservatives

But as JFK said, If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

They are here all right and will continue to be here as long as soup kitchens are open and bleeding heart liberals want to "take care of them."

 

[BlindBoo]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

$20 a month? On companies that profit more than $20 million a year?

Oh the horror!!!

On companies that Gross over 20 million in the city in a year. 3% of businesses.

Now now, you aren't allowed to pull numbers outta yer ass. You don't know how many employees or what the actual gross profit is so you can't possibly know that percentage of their profit they will pay.

My bad, I guess I assumed folks would actually read the link.

"The legislation calls for a tax of $275 per employee, per year on for-profit companies that gross at least $20 million per year in the city"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

After the city gets done with handling charges, the homeless will get nothing.

 

[BluesLegend]

Seattle’s government spending has grown MUCH faster than its population, WOW shocker /sarcasm

 

[Crepitus]

The people of the city of Seattle has passed judgment on it's own and has found that the citizens of Seattle have not been giving enough of their own money to charity the charity agreed upon by the majority....

Seattle has decided its citizens are not giving enough of their money to the homeless, so Seattle is going to SEIZE / TAKE money from its citizens and give it to the homeless....

Who needs 'pan-handling' on street corners with dirty hands out when the city of Seattle will simply take money right out of its citizens' paychecks and give it to the homeless?!

'Majority Rules'?! In every situation or just specific ones? Sorry 'Ma &Pa Soup Shop' the people of Seattle have decided you need to be relieved of some of your money to give to the homeless. 'Charity begins at home'? In Seattle if begins at the ballot box....

Seattle City Council votes 9-0 for scaled-down head tax on large employers

$20 a month? On companies that profit more than $20 million a year?

Oh the horror!!!

On companies that Gross over 20 million in the city in a year. 3% of businesses.

Now now, you aren't allowed to pull numbers outta yer ass. You don't know how many employees or what the actual gross profit is so you can't possibly know that percentage of their profit they will pay.

My bad, I guess I assumed folks would actually read the link.

"The legislation calls for a tax of $275 per employee, per year on for-profit companies that gross at least $20 million per year in the city"

At least. That's a variable. Tighten up kid, your looking kinda silly.