Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have nothing but stories, story teller. Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
under our form of Capitalism.all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour. The 40 hour work week would pay $600. Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560. How many people would continue to work?
And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy. But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend. In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
No. Taxes are to fund the gov't. Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect. But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation. And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.the employer has no say in employment at-will.Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
That is your story. The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state. They can fire you for any reason or no reason. However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.You have nothing but stories, story teller. Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Then you have your wish. The IS equal protection under the law. YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job. Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things. Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour. The 40 hour work week would pay $600. Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560. How many people would continue to work?
And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy. But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend. In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
No. Taxes are to fund the gov't. Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect. But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation. And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.the employer has no say in employment at-will.Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
That is your story. The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state. They can fire you for any reason or no reason. However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.You have nothing but stories, story teller. Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Then you have your wish. The IS equal protection under the law. YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job. Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things. Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy. But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend. In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
No. Taxes are to fund the gov't. Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect. But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation. And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
I offered no excuses. I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
You are ignorant of State law and a federal doctrine.Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.the employer has no say in employment at-will.Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
That is your story. The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state. They can fire you for any reason or no reason. However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
Equal protection means you can quit on that same and equal basis. That is it.
Why did you quit your last job?
EDD should have to prove for-cause employment in an at-will employment State to deny or disparage benefits.it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.You have nothing but stories, story teller. Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Then you have your wish. The IS equal protection under the law. YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job. Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things. Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
The protection is equal. No one said you had to get paid.
You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy. But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend. In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
No. Taxes are to fund the gov't. Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect. But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation. And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
I offered no excuses. I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
You are ignorant of State law and a federal doctrine.Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.the employer has no say in employment at-will.The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
That is your story. The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state. They can fire you for any reason or no reason. However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
Equal protection means you can quit on that same and equal basis. That is it.
Why did you quit your last job?
EDD should have to prove for-cause employment in an at-will employment State to deny or disparage benefits.it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.You have nothing but stories, story teller. Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Then you have your wish. The IS equal protection under the law. YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job. Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things. Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
The protection is equal. No one said you had to get paid.
lol. yes, Your ignorance. Anyone can tell stories.You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.
No. Taxes are to fund the gov't. Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect. But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation. And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
I offered no excuses. I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
My ignorance? LOL!! YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution. That is laughably ignorant.
lol. yes, Your ignorance. Anyone can tell stories.You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.No. Taxes are to fund the gov't. Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect. But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation. And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
I offered no excuses. I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
My ignorance? LOL!! YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution. That is laughably ignorant.
All taxation is income redistribution. Explain how it isn't.
Your point? Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.lol. yes, Your ignorance. Anyone can tell stories.You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
I offered no excuses. I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
My ignorance? LOL!! YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution. That is laughably ignorant.
All taxation is income redistribution. Explain how it isn't.
The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD. Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
Your point? Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.lol. yes, Your ignorance. Anyone can tell stories.You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?I offered no excuses. I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
My ignorance? LOL!! YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution. That is laughably ignorant.
All taxation is income redistribution. Explain how it isn't.
The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD. Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
No, it isn't. You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.Your point? Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.lol. yes, Your ignorance. Anyone can tell stories.You have nothing but ignorance. Why should I take You seriously?
My ignorance? LOL!! YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution. That is laughably ignorant.
All taxation is income redistribution. Explain how it isn't.
The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD. Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers. Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
