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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
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.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.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
lol. you simply make up stories. no discussion of economics claim what You do. ignorance is all You have.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.
In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers. Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.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.
In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers. Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
lol. you simply make up stories. no discussion of economics claim what You do. ignorance is all You have.No, it isn't. You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers. Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.No, it isn't. You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers. Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
You have no argument. You are simply Wrong.lol. you simply make up stories. no discussion of economics claim what You do. ignorance is all You have.No, it isn't. You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
No, I am simply not interested in your sidestepping the topic again.
I listed 3 examples of your ignorançe. We'll agree to disagree on one. The other 2 are correct.
employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.No, it isn't. You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Were you a slave? You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
You have no argument. You are simply Wrong.lol. you simply make up stories. no discussion of economics claim what You do. ignorance is all You have.Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
No, I am simply not interested in your sidestepping the topic again.
I listed 3 examples of your ignorançe. We'll agree to disagree on one. The other 2 are correct.
employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.Horseshit. So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing. Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing. Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Were you a slave? You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
You need to understand the concepts better. It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Were you a slave? You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
No, you have control too. Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Were you a slave? You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
No, you have control too. Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
Were you a slave? You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
No, you have control too. Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
Yes it is. You have the option of quitting. Find another job first and then quit.
You are not a slave. Slaves don't have choices. But that does not mean you continue to get paid. Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.Were you a slave? You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
No, you have control too. Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
Yes it is. You have the option of quitting. Find another job first and then quit.
You are not a slave. Slaves don't have choices. But that does not mean you continue to get paid. Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
No, you have control too. Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
Yes it is. You have the option of quitting. Find another job first and then quit.
You are not a slave. Slaves don't have choices. But that does not mean you continue to get paid. Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
Why? You left of your own free will. If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck. The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you. Equality under the law.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?No, you have control too. Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
Yes it is. You have the option of quitting. Find another job first and then quit.
You are not a slave. Slaves don't have choices. But that does not mean you continue to get paid. Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
Why? You left of your own free will. If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck. The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you. Equality under the law.
all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.That is not, employment at the will of either party. Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
Yes it is. You have the option of quitting. Find another job first and then quit.
You are not a slave. Slaves don't have choices. But that does not mean you continue to get paid. Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
Why? You left of your own free will. If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck. The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you. Equality under the law.
It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.
Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.Yes it is. You have the option of quitting. Find another job first and then quit.
You are not a slave. Slaves don't have choices. But that does not mean you continue to get paid. Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
Why? You left of your own free will. If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck. The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you. Equality under the law.
It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.
Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
