Walmart throws a bone

[Brian37]

Everyone hates Walmart (including myself) but everyone shops there.

If everyone would refuse to spend their money there it would go away. There are alternative stores than Walmart.

Apply the same logic to every major corporation out there.

If they don't earn their pay, why should they be paid? Why should someone else have to surrender some of their own hard-earned money to support the loafer?

This is relative - Everyone who doesn't work is not earning their pay. There are people who cost more than what they produce, not only lazy people but disabled, depressed, ill and older people. In this case you are against specifically people who don't work out of their own will but I have a questions:
- How do you determine scientifically who does not want to work?

Mind you, I'm not against welfare or unemployment benefits; but I don't think welfare should be unconditional. I don't think people who refuse to look for work should get unemployment benefits, either -- and the federal government agrees.

In my country you are legally required to look for work and you have to show up every week in the unemployment center. It's part of the deal. But honestly there's a lot of conflicting variables - What if someone refuses the job because it's poorly paid? What if the lazy fuck has a family to feed?

I have no problem helping the unfortunate who need it, but I'll be goddamned if I go along with paying some yutz to sit on his ass and do nothing simply because he doesn't want to do anything to earn the money.

This has been said already but I'll repeat it - Most people on welfare don't:
1 - Refuse to work
2 - Earn that much (in most first world countries money for welfare is not enough to even afford basic needs - There's people on minimum age AND welfare)
3 - The money spent unnecessarily on welfare is not very significant compared to other illegitimate government spending

Ultimately all of us will pay for something we don't want and it's impossible to determine where our tax money goes - I can't do it, you can't do it, inevitably my money will eventually pay for someone who could have chosen a better lifestyle and made better choices, but I prefer paying for those people and not allow anyone to die on hunger. This is also dependent on personal opinion, some people don't like paying for certain categories of people while others are fine with it; some people want to pay for everyone and others for no one

"Better lifestyle" code for be a clone of me. I am talking about human empathy, not inequity. Yes you are right everyone pays taxes for things they don't like. It is just that some have a really horrible attitude because they vote for a certain party or have wealth that those titles means they get to decide for everyone. It would seem that if they were right no one would be complaining, not that they ever had the absolute right to decide for everyone.

[Dystopia]

I agree with the better lifestyle part, if I'm not another person I'm not in a position to judge his/her entire life choices based on my assumption on how things work. People go trough all sorts of shit, so we should avoid lecturing others on how to deal with their problems.

I don't mind paying taxes for things I don't like and there isn't a particular sect of people that I dislike in particular. I don't mind that my tax money goes to people who don't work out of free will, because I know the majority of them are simply without opportunities - My country has 15% unemployment (and the statistics lie - It's probably around 20% because of registered unemployed people) and if I count people working on temporary (usually 1-3 years or less) low paid jobs only about 60% of the population (active population I mean) has a stable job. It's not an easy world out there.

I am part of one of those groups people target as being a lazy fuck and tell me I should die for them to not pay taxes, and apparently I'm a drain on the healthcare system despite the fact there are studies contradicting it

[Jenny A]

I have no problem helping the unfortunate who need it, but I'll be goddamned if I go along with paying some yutz to sit on his ass and do nothing simply because he doesn't want to do anything to earn the money.

^This^

I would add that I'm perfectly fine with paying the disabled who cannot work. Some kinds of mental as well as physical illness prevent working.

[Brian37]

I agree with the better lifestyle part, if I'm not another person I'm not in a position to judge his/her entire life choices based on my assumption on how things work. People go trough all sorts of shit, so we should avoid lecturing others on how to deal with their problems.

I don't mind paying taxes for things I don't like and there isn't a particular sect of people that I dislike in particular. I don't mind that my tax money goes to people who don't work out of free will, because I know the majority of them are simply without opportunities - My country has 15% unemployment (and the statistics lie - It's probably around 20% because of registered unemployed people) and if I count people working on temporary (usually 1-3 years or less) low paid jobs only about 60% of the population (active population I mean) has a stable job. It's not an easy world out there.

I am part of one of those groups people target as being a lazy fuck and tell me I should die for them to not pay taxes, and apparently I'm a drain on the healthcare system despite the fact there are studies contradicting it

This is what happens in any aspect of society, sell enough people a utopia(an idea about politics, religion or business) and if you don't fit in you deserve to die. Basic human tribalism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Everyone hates Walmart (including myself) but everyone shops there.

If everyone would refuse to spend their money there it would go away. There are alternative stores than Walmart.

In the last year, I've spent about $100 there: a pair of waterproof hiking shoes, a Timex Expedition to replace my old piece, and a pair of thermal underwear for cold days at the Preserve -- today was one, we've been at 31°F most of the day, and I'm a big wuss.

I should shop at Dick's instead for that sort of stuff ... note to self.

[KUSA]

I'm surprised that Heywood hasn't chimed in with one of his BS solutions.

[abaris]

Walmart has to be the most shitty retail company out there. They tried to expand to Germany but failed miserably. Their usual treatment of workers is unacceptable in most European countries and people simply refused to buy their shit. They were burning money on that little expedition.

That said, there are other shitty companies that are able to survive under European conditions. Mc Donalds and Burger King for example. They have to abide by local standards. Food legislation as well as working conditions. The result is, you don't get a crappy meal for 98 cents, but you don't get cheap food substitutes either. Workers can scratch by. It's not as if they could live like kings and queens in Europe either, but outright exploitation is next to impossible given the laws of most countries.

[KUSA]

Everyone hates Walmart (including myself) but everyone shops there.

If everyone would refuse to spend their money there it would go away. There are alternative stores than Walmart.

Apply the same logic to every major corporation ?

The same logic could be applied. In order for it to be effective the majority should focus on one giant at a time. It would be easy to topple Walmart in a short time if a vast majority of people stopped shopping there at the same time.

[Brian37]

Apply the same logic to every major corporation ?

The same logic could be applied. In order for it to be effective the majority should focus on one giant at a time. It would be easy to topple Walmart in a short time if a vast majority of people stopped shopping there at the same time.

Actually global corporatism is a bitch to break up. It is a race to the bottom. I will say more people in the states are not buying corporate blackmail but they have used throwing temporary crumbs to lull workers back into a false sense of security.

But the pay gap outside the US is nowhere close to the US in first world countries. That is what we need to address.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do, again, you are stupidly thinking the ratio would explode to where everyone would stop working.

No, I'm not. My stand is based on principle. Do us both a favor and quit pretending you know what I think before I've said it. It's rude, it leads to tension in a thread, and it makes you look like a fatuous asshole.

I don't think because you are in need you should be subject to Orwellian microscopes. If anything the rich write far more damaging laws for themselves that allow them to get away with all sorts of shit.

Slippery-slope fallacy, coupled with tu quoque. Revise and resubmit.

There is a minimum everyone deserves not because they are perfect human beings but because they are humans.

When that comes from other humans, those other humans have every right to ask if the taxation is necessary, or not. If it isn't necessary -- if the recipient can work but chooses not to -- the person being stripped of earned wealth should have every right to call foul.

You sure in the hell wouldn't like it if someone snuck into your house and stole your food because they didn't want to earn it. Why should you be okay with someone sneaking into your paycheck?

How many house wives get free room and board and have no jobs?

Equivocation fallacy: those husbands choose to remain in that marriage, but I cannot legally choose to not pay taxes.

Thanks for playing, Brian.

---

This is relative - Everyone who doesn't work is not earning their pay. There are people who cost more than what they produce, not only lazy people but disabled, depressed, ill and older people. In this case you are against specifically people who don't work out of their own will but I have a questions:
- How do you determine scientifically who does not want to work?

When I was on unemployment a few years back, I had to submit a list of five employers every two weeks that I had applied to for jobs. It was pretty simple: if I didn't fill in the blanks, I didn't get a check.

In my country you are legally required to look for work and you have to show up every week in the unemployment center. It's part of the deal. But honestly there's a lot of conflicting variables - What if someone refuses the job because it's poorly paid? What if the lazy fuck has a family to feed?

I'd rather work for low wages than not work at all.

This has been said already but I'll repeat it - Most people on welfare don't:
1 - Refuse to work

Of course not. Why are you assuming that I think that?

2 - Earn that much (in most first world countries money for welfare is not enough to even afford basic needs - There's people on minimum age AND welfare)

Of course. I was one of them, at one time.

3 - The money spent unnecessarily on welfare is not very significant compared to other illegitimate government spending

Given that that has not been a point I've made, this looks an awful lot like a strawman. Don't impute views onto me which I don't hold, okay?

Ultimately all of us will pay for something we don't want and it's impossible to determine where our tax money goes - I can't do it, you can't do it, inevitably my money will eventually pay for someone who could have chosen a better lifestyle and made better choices, but I prefer paying for those people and not allow anyone to die on hunger.

Evacuated-middle fallacy. Not everyone on welfare is unable to work. Not everyone who is unemployed is a mooch. Not everyone collecting a government check faces starvation as the only other option.

I accept that my taxes will end up funding policy initiatives which don't sit well with me. That doesn't mean I cannot speak my mind about it; indeed, as a concerned citizen, I feel I have a duty to speak up about such things, so that my taxes, and my votes, aren't my only voice.

This is also dependent on personal opinion, some people don't like paying for certain categories of people while others are fine with it; some people want to pay for everyone and others for no one

As I said, I'm not against government assistance. I'm against the extreme form put forth by another poster above.