Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[lilpixieofterror]

I take it we're not going to redistribute wealth to the poorest of the world, that really need it, but keep making excuses for why others have to redistribute their wealth, but we don't have to?

[Mountain Man]

I take it we're not going to redistribute wealth to the poorest of the world, that really need it, but keep making excuses for why others have to redistribute their wealth, but we don't have to?

"Other people's money." That's always the liberal answer.

[Mountain Man]

Depends, is it immoral to take things (that are not yours) and give them to somebody else?

And that's the entire debate in a nutshell: Is it moral or immoral to forcibly take resources that belong to someone and give them to another person who has no claim on those resources? Most people would call that stealing, but when idiot liberals talk about it, they use the friendly sounding euphamism "wealth redistribution".

[Sparko]

Apparently you are off-the-charts dumb.

Rich people tend to invest the majority money in stock portfolios. and other similar investments. Sure, they buy more expensive wine and food and live in a large house, and possibly fly around in a private jet or helicopter. But as a total percentage of their money, they spend a lot less than the average person and save a lot more. By contrast, very poor people typically can't afford to save anything, having to spend 100% of their income every week on expenses to get by.

The very rich don't typically tend to put very much of their money in bank accounts, per se, simply because savings accounts don't typically give a great rate of return. Instead, the very rich typically invest their money in investment portfolios and real estate. But, for most intents and purposes, those two forms of investment are pretty much equivalent to just 'putting it in the bank' in the sense that they are saving their money and recouping interest & capital gains on their investments.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? Watching cartoons?

Most rich people in America run businesses. Look at Bill Gates, probably the richest man in America. Did he just sit on his rear? Or did he take a programming job and turn it into the most popular computer operating systems in the world? He is now retired, and spends a lot of his money on charity, scholarships, etc.

Sure he has investments. So do I. Do you know what investments are? They are not a piggy bank. They don't take money out of the economy. They put money into the economy. When someone invests in a stock, they are BUYING a piece of the company. The company gets the money for the shares. They either do well with it (making good products that sell well) or they do poorly. If they do well, their shares become more costly and valuable, and they pay out interest, called dividends. They expand the business, hire new workers, make more products. If they do poorly, the stock drops in value and eventually the company will become bankrupt or go out of business and you have lost what you put into the investment.

You seem completely clueless about how money or the economy works.

Your idea to "just raise taxes" is the epitome of idiocy.

If the government pays someone more to sit on their but by taxing those who do the work, pretty soon those who do the work will stop. Why should I work for $50,000/year (just an example) and end up with less to show for it than someone on the Government dole? I would just stop working too. And pretty soon there is nobody left to tax. That is what is meant by "pretty soon you run out of other people's money"

Now go graduate middle school, or go read a good book on economics before posting your ignorance online for everyone to see.

[Sparko]

So, let's try this.....

I have some land.
For whatever reason, I sell all or part of that land.
At Jubilee, that land is returned to ME, the original owner.

Lev 25:10 (KJV) And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

Lev 25:10 (NIV) Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan.

Lev 25:10 (HCSB) You are to consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim freedom in the land for all its inhabitants. It will be your Jubilee, when each of you is to return to his property and each of you to his clan.

Now, how, exactly, is THAT "redistribution"?

Show me what I'm missing, Sam.

I don't think it is even saying that, cp. Looks like it is just telling people to return to their family property and clan. It seems to assume they still own that property. Not that it is being given "back" to them (or anyone else, it looks like a long term rental or lease agreement expiring) (kinda like when we gave Hong Kong back to the Chinese after the lease expired. Or is there more?

[Cow Poke]

I don't think it is even saying that, cp. Looks like it is just telling people to return to their family property and clan. It seems to assume they still own that property. Not that it is being given "back" to them (or anyone else, it looks like a long term rental or lease agreement expiring) (kinda like when we gave Hong Kong back to the Chinese after the lease expired. Or is there more?

No, that's pretty much it, and I've dealt with this extensively throughout this thread. Jubilee - no matter how you spin it - has NOTHING to do with forcing people to give land or property away to others.

[Jesse]

No, that's pretty much it, and I've dealt with this extensively throughout this thread. Jubilee - no matter how you spin it - has NOTHING to do with forcing people to give land or property away to others.

What I think this is really about is pushing politics onto Scripture where it isn't warranted. They so badly need Scripture to say stealing is good so they don't have to feel bad about pushing an economical view that needs stealing to work.

[Cow Poke]

What I think this is really about is pushing politics onto Scripture where it isn't warranted. They so badly need Scripture to say stealing is good so they don't have to feel bad about pushing an economical view that needs stealing to work.

EGGzackly... "here's my cockedyed idea, now I just need to find a scripture that I can twist to make it appear I have a biblical mandate...."

[Sparko]

No, that's pretty much it, and I've dealt with this extensively throughout this thread. Jubilee - no matter how you spin it - has NOTHING to do with forcing people to give land or property away to others.

sooooo....

You ask Sam for scripture to back up his assertions.
He says "do your own homework"
You do your own homework and post scripture that shows Sam to be wrong.

and instead of using scripture to counter your "homework" he just tosses out some lame ad hom about you not having studied the Jubilee in detail.

Sounds like Sam is basically admitting that he has no backing for his assertion in the bible.

[Paprika]

Exactly. This only applied to voluntary contracts between two parties and is nothing like the forced "redistribution" that liberal morons like you and Sam keep whooping and hollering about.

A contract can be voluntary between two parties yet a third party can force something.

I keep waiting for one of you guys to produce a verse that says, "If thy brother hath considerable wealth, thou shalt seize it forcibly and giveth freely to the poor out of thy brother's excess," because based on your arguments, you're apparently convinced that such a verse exists.

[Cow Poke]

sooooo....

You ask Sam for scripture to back up his assertions.
He says "do your own homework"
You do your own homework and post scripture that shows Sam to be wrong.

and instead of using scripture to counter your "homework" he just tosses out some lame ad hom about you not having studied the Jubilee in detail.

Sounds like Sam is basically admitting that he has no backing for his assertion in the bible.

Yeah, I made the mistake of being HONEST and FORTHRIGHT that I hadn't ever studied Jubilee to the extent that I had studied other biblical matters. Sam saw fit to use that as a weapon against me.

I have SINCE studied it quite a bit, and it certainly is no foundation for the way "wealth distribution" is being pushed today.

It's also interesting that the Papster proposed this as a biblical foundation for "forced redistribution", but has been backing away from that ever since.

[Paprika]

Indeed. He also seems to have a bad habit of running away from an argument

Rot. I'm still here. Then and now, your the one who doesn't want to continue the discussion

once scholars are actually used.

I'm not sure if this is just stupidity. You cite scholars in an attempt to justify your line of argument; when I rightly point out that the quotes don't achieve that I'm ignoring the authorities

[Jesse]

Rot. I'm still here. Then and now, your the one who doesn't want to continue the discussion


I'm not sure if this is just stupidity. You cite scholars in an attempt to justify your line of argument; when I rightly point out that the quotes don't achieve that I'm ignoring the authorities

And still no substance from you huh? Is it your goal to talk around in circles in hope that an argument is formed?

[Paprika]

And that's the entire debate in a nutshell: Is it moral or immoral to forcibly take resources that belong to someone and give them to another person who has no claim on those resources? Most people would call that stealing, but when idiot liberals talk about it, they use the friendly sounding euphamism "wealth redistribution".

I am reminded of libertarian Joel, who used to claim that all taxation was immoral because it involved the government forcibly taking resources from someone else.

[Paprika]

And still no substance from you huh? Is it your goal to talk around in circles in hope that an argument is formed?

I made the last substantial response: ball's in your court.