Again ... goal or objective. That's what they want. But duty is about what they should do, which is serve/represent. It's a semantic quibble perhaps, but it illustrates a <cough!> diversity of expectation.
Why are you still arguing? You already conceded the victory, any argument you have now is just whining. We already proved that welfare doesn't work and you agreed.
Back up your pull string Althor... read the post explaining the situation... why my employee is making more than myself on this specific job and the fact that I said that this is not something that I am saying business owners should be doing to be a good business.
Where was my concession located? Post #?
I beg to differ!
And I thought you differed with begging. ~ducking again~ cn
Sometimes. But if he should decide to go to "greener" pastures, you may regret that investment.
I would like to request that we lift the limit on liking posts.
Well, his true ambitions are elsewhere. I hope that one day he is to busy with gigs to be working with me. Which is very likely, very talented young guy. We're talking about doing another little business as well. It will be his business, I've just gained a little experience in book keeping and such and can always use a part time job I can perform while sitting on the couch, resting to get back out and perform physical labor.
So you're NOT paying SS and Medicare, unemployment insurance or workman's comp? It sounds like you're doing much less than "greedy corporations" do to protect their employees. You're also risking being charged with several criminal offenses. Should I also assume you're not covered by liability insurance? These are things you must do, not just by law, but by your own standards. You demand these things of others, but won't do them yourself?
I'm not sure what context that was in or what you are getting at.. If it is important to you, you can explain what you are getting at, but I gotta start getting some things together for work. I;ll check back later.
If he did that he wouldn't be making any money and would have to layoff his employee.
I did ask if the graph was adjusted for inflation. You don't know that it wasn't. A similar graph was posted that WAS adjusted for inflation was posted, and it looked much the same.
No, you do not have to pay SS, med, unemployment to contract laborers. Assuming that they are contract employees and you are not just classifying them as such to save money, then it is not against the law.
Not true, actually. I've been doing the numbers. We can afford it, starting Jan 1st.
Sorry, you can't push the string back in.
Here is the page from which that graph came, from a website I'd classify as "interested". (On a neighboring page, the sitemaker extols the Ryan Plan.) If the graph had been adjusted for inflation, I would have expected them to crow about it, because it makes the perceived problem so much worse. I'll bet a beer at the tavern of your choice that these are raw dollar numbers for effect. cn
To me the most important fact the poverty graph shows is how it was decreasing at a pretty steady pace until we began the "war" on poverty. Government involvement did not increase the poverty rate as I've heard some claim but it definitely stalled the progress the country was making without their help.