Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

datonn

Novel Idea for Reducing Unemployment

69 posts in this topic

Great now we would get to pay even more payroll taxes on the $250K employee(s), theres another $90K to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in a school where all the kids are on free and reduced lunch. You would not believe the number of kids (age 8 - 13) who are sporting Air Jordans and rocking smart phones.

I vote that we should eliminate all income taxes and just tax people on what they consume. That way we can hit all these people that take advantage of others....as for creating a job just to create one, that is a very benevolent idea, but would never work because having more people on your payroll than you need makes your business less efficient and successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few folks in our weekly group tonight starting talking (for the 1,000th time) about getting the poor and lazy off the government "teet" tonight (not your typical Bible study, I suppose), when someone mentioned an idea I thought was rather novel: Any business owner/manager/CEO pocketing more than $250,000/year "tithing" 10% of that total ($25,000+) to their company...so the company could put that toward hiring a new employee. Putting their money where their mouth is...and giving up that third car, or the vacation home/timeshare, or the 860-inch TV in the den. So that one more individual in our country who is down on their luck had a chance to work for a living and try and re-build some sort of productive life.

NOTE: Lazy people, dead beats, drug addicts, et al need not apply. I'm talking people who need a job, are willing to work and earn their pay, and will be thankful to be back in the workforce. If even 10% of the owners/managers/CEOs out there netting a cool quarter-million or more would do that? You're probably talking hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created. Hundreds of thousands fewer people collecting unemployment. Hundreds of thousands more people paying taxes.

I assume in our me-first, "what's mine is mine" culture, it'd never fly. But as a CEO myself (who nets nowhere near $250,000/year...but has high goals and aspirations), it's something I think I could give serious consideration to going forward. What say the rest of you? Of course, everyone in the FFA is leading lifestyles of the rich and famous...burning Benjamins in the fireplace to keep warm! ;) But do any of the rest of you think you could do it? Even if society told you that you were nuts...and that you should keep every last dime for yourself?

If there was more of this, there would be less perceived "need" for government. I love the concept of charity; I despise the concept of forced redistribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me if the CEO really wanted to do something like this, he'd kick it back to his current employees who are already busting their butts to make the company profitable, not create an unneeded position and go out a hire a charity case to fill it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few folks in our weekly group tonight starting talking (for the 1,000th time) about getting the poor and lazy off the government "teet" tonight (not your typical Bible study, I suppose), when someone mentioned an idea I thought was rather novel: Any business owner/manager/CEO pocketing more than $250,000/year "tithing" 10% of that total ($25,000+) to their company...so the company could put that toward hiring a new employee. Putting their money where their mouth is...and giving up that third car, or the vacation home/timeshare, or the 860-inch TV in the den. So that one more individual in our country who is down on their luck had a chance to work for a living and try and re-build some sort of productive life.

NOTE: Lazy people, dead beats, drug addicts, et al need not apply. I'm talking people who need a job, are willing to work and earn their pay, and will be thankful to be back in the workforce. If even 10% of the owners/managers/CEOs out there netting a cool quarter-million or more would do that? You're probably talking hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created. Hundreds of thousands fewer people collecting unemployment. Hundreds of thousands more people paying taxes.

I assume in our me-first, "what's mine is mine" culture, it'd never fly. But as a CEO myself (who nets nowhere near $250,000/year...but has high goals and aspirations), it's something I think I could give serious consideration to going forward. What say the rest of you? Of course, everyone in the FFA is leading lifestyles of the rich and famous...burning Benjamins in the fireplace to keep warm! ;) But do any of the rest of you think you could do it? Even if society told you that you were nuts...and that you should keep every last dime for yourself?

Just out of curiosity why is it limited to those that make 250K+? Why don't you include all people that have a job considering it is a proportional % of their respective total salary (including your study group)? I will tell you from experience that those in that salary range are paying way more in taxes than a comparable person making 50K per year therefore the take home, strictly on a percentage basis, is less. I find these discussion annoying because generally the people that are in higher pay brackets gave up a lot to get there. Speaking personally, I gave up ten years of life to build a career that allows me to be in that pay range. Why do I need to share my reward with someone that does not have the same work ethic? I don’t want to come off as a Richard but I think your ideas while admirable, are very naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's see. They're giving 30 something percent to the Feds, plus SS and whatnot. They're giving 7-10% to their state. They're giving 10% to their church. Now they should give another 10% to a random person just to give them a job. How much should they be able to keep?

Maybe I didn't say it correctly in an earlier post...but I was talking about people who NET $250,000+. Taxes are paid, write-offs/deductions are claimed, et al. And they still are showing ~$5,000 net/week in personal profit as a result of their employment.

I'm not talking about a mandate, law, or government program. I'm talking about people with the means to do it actually doing it of their own free will.

That's another question though: how much money is "enough?" For my family of four, we were eeking by on $60,000/year up until 2-3 years ago, when our business finally started taking off. We had six pages of wants that weren't being met, but we had a house, two vehicles, and no debt. Now that we're doing a lot better, we've started crossing a couple wants off our list. Remodeling three rooms in our home that were in desperate need of it. Took a two-week vacation to Hawai'i for the first time in 6-7 years. Etc. But if we double our income again in 4-5 years, what do we do with all of that extra "excess?" Buy a better car? Two cars? Take 3-4 vacations? Build a big wrought-iron fence around our yard with a sign that says "poor people, get the #### off our lawn!" :shrug: You can't take money with you...and how much is "enough?" A sincere question.

Ever thougt about paying for your kids college, being able to save a down payment for each of thier first houses, weddings (not sure if you have girls), etc....I can think of a lot of places the extra money can go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea Datonn. Could you please hire as a consultant? I'm PM you my address where you can start sending cheques to. Any extra money in your bank account will do. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US CEOs - :lmao:

Fixed.datonn, you mean well, you are just living in some sort of fantasy land where CEO's actually care about anything other than their own bank account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want companies to hire employees they don't need?

Don't need? I suppose. But what if that person could get a lot of things done that existing employees never seem to have time to accomplish? Would that be more or less productive (and/or a drain on our economy) than having a CEO or management simply pocketing their salary?!

Maybe it's simply a different mentality. Sometimes I bring people aboard with my own company because I know they are going to make me a lot of money (talent oozing out of every pour, while filling a need that we could benefit from). But on 1-2 occasions, I've also brought people in who we didn't really need...but who needed a break. Life dealt them a bad hand, and while they had talent, that talent was going to waste. Did I need them? No. But I got a chance to do a little good and make a difference in their lives...and at least in one of those relationships, what I've received in return far outweighed any financial costs I incurred. And I don't make anywhere close to $250,000/year. Less than half that, in fact.

It's just an idea. For every one company out there looking to increase shareholder earnings by a penny or two, there's probably 1,000 moms and pops out there who aren't publicly traded and are just trying to earn a living while making a positive dent in their communities. Just thought it might be a chance to make a bit larger positive dent, for the ones that are making healthy salaries. Even in what has been a tougher economic environment.

What things are a 25,000 per year (Net even) employee going to accomplish for a company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US CEOs - :lmao:

Fixed.datonn, you mean well, you are just living in some sort of fantasy land where CEO's actually care about anything other than their own bank account.
:lol:Not sure what you are implying above. I'd venture to say even the worst example of CEO philanthropy likely dwarfs yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US CEOs - :lmao:

Fixed.

datonn, you mean well, you are just living in some sort of fantasy land where CEO's actually care about anything other than their own bank account.

:lol:

Not sure what you are implying above. I'd venture to say even the worst example of CEO philanthropy likely dwarfs yours.

10 million worth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few folks in our weekly group tonight starting talking (for the 1,000th time) about getting the poor and lazy off the government "teet" tonight (not your typical Bible study, I suppose), when someone mentioned an idea I thought was rather novel: Any business owner/manager/CEO pocketing more than $250,000/year "tithing" 10% of that total ($25,000+) to their company...so the company could put that toward hiring a new employee. Putting their money where their mouth is...and giving up that third car, or the vacation home/timeshare, or the 860-inch TV in the den. So that one more individual in our country who is down on their luck had a chance to work for a living and try and re-build some sort of productive life.

NOTE: Lazy people, dead beats, drug addicts, et al need not apply. I'm talking people who need a job, are willing to work and earn their pay, and will be thankful to be back in the workforce. If even 10% of the owners/managers/CEOs out there netting a cool quarter-million or more would do that? You're probably talking hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created. Hundreds of thousands fewer people collecting unemployment. Hundreds of thousands more people paying taxes.

I assume in our me-first, "what's mine is mine" culture, it'd never fly. But as a CEO myself (who nets nowhere near $250,000/year...but has high goals and aspirations), it's something I think I could give serious consideration to going forward. What say the rest of you? Of course, everyone in the FFA is leading lifestyles of the rich and famous...burning Benjamins in the fireplace to keep warm! ;) But do any of the rest of you think you could do it? Even if society told you that you were nuts...and that you should keep every last dime for yourself?

If there was more of this, there would be less perceived "need" for government. I love the concept of charity; I despise the concept of forced redistribution.
The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it. And if you decide you want that third home in the Maldives instead of cut a person who could really use one a break, there wouldn't be any warrants out for your arrest. Completely, 100% voluntary! Yet even the thought of doing it sends 4-5 people into a pseudo-rage.

Isn't this the model the Republicans want? What I sort of eluded to in post #8: "ETA: Fennis, isn't the scenario you described in your quote just about the textbook definition of trickle-down economics? Let the job-creators (the wealthy) keep more of their $$$...so they can create more employment opportunities?!" Isn't this the model being preached from the pulpit on Sundays from every pastor/preacher who has made it an "us vs. them" debate when it comes to religion and the government? Or the wealthy vs. the poor? For everyone asking for smaller government, isn't this the type of thing that would be required?

Someone has to provide a social services safety net in our country. I personally don't care whether that is the government, the church, or some other party. But a society without that safety net is a society where crime and violence will absolutely skyrocket. It's easy enough for all of us "haves" to say "get off your lazy ### and get a job!" It's harder when we realize that millions of individuals who use unemployment, social security, medicare, medicaid, et al aren't lazy and aren't abusing drugs and alcohol. The people who are and THEN stick out their hands looking for their next fix? They can go somewhere where they cannot harm or steal from others (more than they already do)...preferably over to Japan to help with that nuclear reactor clean-up. ;) But not everyone is like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me, I completely understand lazy and a waste of oxygen! I have a younger sister. She had better grades than me in high school, was always way more book-smart than I was, but she had a boyfriend who lost interest in her. So to keep him interested, she "put out" ...a lot. And after 6-8 months of keeping him around by being his sexual playground, she got pregnant. Half-way through her first semester of college. So instead of going on to medical school, she transferred to community college, became a mom, then moved back in with my parents. She ended up marrying the guy, and they had a second child. He was still only ~20, and needed to "sew his wild oats." So after a couple years, he ditched the three of them, and the three of them moved back in with my parents while he was off looking for wealthy girlfriends to live off of (so he didn't have to get a job, so he didn't need to pay child support).

My sister was so distraught that she basically checked-out as a parent. Found a job an hour (one-way) away from home, so she could spend 2-3 hours after work not needing to be a parent. Had, I kid you not, about 35 surgeries to her knees, shoulders, etc. to feel physical pain to validate the mental/emotional pain of her situation. Doctors would tell her to avoid sports for six months, she'd be out playing a softball game in two weeks...and wouldn't you know it? Another surgery. :rolleyes: With her employer and/or the taxpayer funding it. After dozens of surgeries, her body was so broken down that she was in constant, chronic pain...so then came the horse tranquilizers. Where you'd get together for holidays and she'd stare at a blank wall for 5-10 minutes practically drooling on herself...only to come-to and then yell at one of her daughters to knock-off whatever they were doing. Which her daughters would completely ignore because they knew "mom" would be back in a trance in a few minutes, and they could do pretty much whatever they wanted.

Youngest niece is "homeschooled," which is a joke...since my sister barely does anything with her (but appreciates the tax savings of homeschooling...so she can afford a cruise or another 10-20 DVDs of movies she'll watch once and then will collect dust in her living room). She's also severely bipolar and heavily medicated herself...not to mention a smoker (whose couselor tells my sister to actually buy her cigarettes even though she's underage, to keep her from holding a knife to my sister's throat and threatening her life to the point of involving police again) and very sexually active. Nothing "better" than going on Facebook to see your teenage (young teenage) niece excitedly post that her pregnancy test came back negative. :kicksrock:

Oldest niece is 19, was arrested in Iowa last year on a drug possession charge (pot), and was given probation. Needed to either have a full-time job, or be a full-time student (or some combination thereof). She's not worked an hour since the sentencing five months ago...nor has she sat an hour in any classroom. And about six weeks ago, she found out that she was pregnant...with her ex being the father. She, her ex, my sister, and my niece...none of them have any job, nor do any of them have much/any inclination to work. They just want to cash whatever government checks or money that their family will give them. Just enough to let them float through life for another few weeks until the next checks or "begging."

So let's just say I speak from experience. Personal experience. But these are not the people I am talking about when I'm talking about cutting people a break. I'm talking about people who want to work, who feel embarrassed and ashamed to wake up in the morning and having nothing to do other than use up resources that others provide for them while they try and get back on their feet. For every one dead-beat (like my family I have described above), I'm sure there's at LEAST one person who got laid off not related to job performance, or who had a serious medical issue to themselves or a loved one that basically bankrupted them, or ??? If "we" don't help these people and we don't want the government to do it, who's going to do it? And how long until people who could have been saved will throw up their hands and say "screw it," and just become another person like my sister and nieces?

[/rant] I just want to make sure folks know that I have more than enough first-hand experience with issues such as this. Even if you exclude the years I worked as a Community Organizer in South Minneapolis. I'm as cold/heartless towards people who are selfish and will take from others without so much as a thank you or any effort to improve their situations as the cruelest FFA member here! But not everyone is like that. Save the people who can be saved. While ceasing the enabling/empowering of those individuals who are amazingly content being a leech on society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta hand it to datonn. His threads never disappoint. The board needs more datonn's. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US CEOs - :lmao:

Fixed.

datonn, you mean well, you are just living in some sort of fantasy land where CEO's actually care about anything other than their own bank account.

:lol:

Not sure what you are implying above. I'd venture to say even the worst example of CEO philanthropy likely dwarfs yours.

10 million worth
Nice knowing ya, matuski. I'd venture to say that you won't be returing to this thread. :lmao:

matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone should volunteer to give me %.01 of their income. In return, I promise to spend it and therefore help the economy and create jobs.

It is only %.01 of your income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it.

I'm not really sure if you know how donating to a charity works, but you don't just come up with a number like 10% and say let's all donate that. People donate if they like the cause, and donate what they feel comfortable giving. You can't dictate a number. Doing that makes it sound like a tax, so if you were really shooting for a charity, you worded it very poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it.

I'm not really sure if you know how donating to a charity works, but you don't just come up with a number like 10% and say let's all donate that. People donate if they like the cause, and donate what they feel comfortable giving. You can't dictate a number. Doing that makes it sound like a tax, so if you were really shooting for a charity, you worded it very poorly.
You're probably right. We simply kicked around 10% because that's also the percentage many/most people use for tithing at their church. A completely arbitrary number...we could have just as easily have said "1%" or "5%" or ""20%." The specific number wasn't the important thing, as much as the idea of giving some people who had a few bad breaks in life a chance to right their ship. People who need it, and who won't waste the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, my friends and I came up with a GREAT idea.

Lets have people who make more money than us give it away to poor people. GENIUS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it.

I'm not really sure if you know how donating to a charity works, but you don't just come up with a number like 10% and say let's all donate that. People donate if they like the cause, and donate what they feel comfortable giving. You can't dictate a number. Doing that makes it sound like a tax, so if you were really shooting for a charity, you worded it very poorly.
You're probably right. We simply kicked around 10% because that's also the percentage many/most people use for tithing at their church. A completely arbitrary number...we could have just as easily have said "1%" or "5%" or ""20%." The specific number wasn't the important thing, as much as the idea of giving some people who had a few bad breaks in life a chance to right their ship. People who need it, and who won't waste the opportunity.
That was cordial. Sorry if I came on too strong. :hattip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it.

I'm not really sure if you know how donating to a charity works, but you don't just come up with a number like 10% and say let's all donate that. People donate if they like the cause, and donate what they feel comfortable giving. You can't dictate a number. Doing that makes it sound like a tax, so if you were really shooting for a charity, you worded it very poorly.
You're probably right. We simply kicked around 10% because that's also the percentage many/most people use for tithing at their church. A completely arbitrary number...we could have just as easily have said "1%" or "5%" or ""20%." The specific number wasn't the important thing, as much as the idea of giving some people who had a few bad breaks in life a chance to right their ship. People who need it, and who won't waste the opportunity.
I always wondered about that. :confused: Sure sounds like a bribe. Is that 10% getting you a better seat after you are dead? Hope you don't get pissed when I come knocking and get let in for no charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it.

I'm not really sure if you know how donating to a charity works, but you don't just come up with a number like 10% and say let's all donate that. People donate if they like the cause, and donate what they feel comfortable giving. You can't dictate a number. Doing that makes it sound like a tax, so if you were really shooting for a charity, you worded it very poorly.
You're probably right. We simply kicked around 10% because that's also the percentage many/most people use for tithing at their church. A completely arbitrary number...we could have just as easily have said "1%" or "5%" or ""20%." The specific number wasn't the important thing, as much as the idea of giving some people who had a few bad breaks in life a chance to right their ship. People who need it, and who won't waste the opportunity.
why doesn't the church just hire a bunch of people? the RCC, as one example, must have billions laying around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few folks in our weekly group tonight starting talking (for the 1,000th time) about getting the poor and lazy off the government "teet" tonight (not your typical Bible study, I suppose), when someone mentioned an idea I thought was rather novel: Any business owner/manager/CEO pocketing more than $250,000/year "tithing" 10% of that total ($25,000+) to their company...so the company could put that toward hiring a new employee. Putting their money where their mouth is...and giving up that third car, or the vacation home/timeshare, or the 860-inch TV in the den. So that one more individual in our country who is down on their luck had a chance to work for a living and try and re-build some sort of productive life.

NOTE: Lazy people, dead beats, drug addicts, et al need not apply. I'm talking people who need a job, are willing to work and earn their pay, and will be thankful to be back in the workforce. If even 10% of the owners/managers/CEOs out there netting a cool quarter-million or more would do that? You're probably talking hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created. Hundreds of thousands fewer people collecting unemployment. Hundreds of thousands more people paying taxes.

I assume in our me-first, "what's mine is mine" culture, it'd never fly. But as a CEO myself (who nets nowhere near $250,000/year...but has high goals and aspirations), it's something I think I could give serious consideration to going forward. What say the rest of you? Of course, everyone in the FFA is leading lifestyles of the rich and famous...burning Benjamins in the fireplace to keep warm! ;) But do any of the rest of you think you could do it? Even if society told you that you were nuts...and that you should keep every last dime for yourself?

How long did you guys talk about getting the Oil Companies off the government teat? Or Israel? Or defense contractors? Or farmers?

Anyway, obvious holes in your theory/plan, first being companies generally hire who they need, not who they can pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that about a dozen or so of the replies this morning were basically people creeping out on to the ledge at the thought of forced redistribution. I said about 2-3 times last night, what we kicked around would not be a government program. There would be zero taxes backing it.

I'm not really sure if you know how donating to a charity works, but you don't just come up with a number like 10% and say let's all donate that. People donate if they like the cause, and donate what they feel comfortable giving. You can't dictate a number. Doing that makes it sound like a tax, so if you were really shooting for a charity, you worded it very poorly.
You're probably right. We simply kicked around 10% because that's also the percentage many/most people use for tithing at their church. A completely arbitrary number...we could have just as easily have said "1%" or "5%" or ""20%." The specific number wasn't the important thing, as much as the idea of giving some people who had a few bad breaks in life a chance to right their ship. People who need it, and who won't waste the opportunity.
So how many hours did it take your group of friends to stumble upon the basic concept of charity? Next week you should put your heads together and discuss the possibility of an invention that has four wheels and transports us from place to place using gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few folks in our weekly group tonight starting talking (for the 1,000th time) about getting the poor and lazy off the government "teet" tonight (not your typical Bible study, I suppose), when someone mentioned an idea I thought was rather novel: Any business owner/manager/CEO pocketing more than $250,000/year "tithing" 10% of that total ($25,000+) to their company...so the company could put that toward hiring a new employee. Putting their money where their mouth is...and giving up that third car, or the vacation home/timeshare, or the 860-inch TV in the den. So that one more individual in our country who is down on their luck had a chance to work for a living and try and re-build some sort of productive life.

NOTE: Lazy people, dead beats, drug addicts, et al need not apply. I'm talking people who need a job, are willing to work and earn their pay, and will be thankful to be back in the workforce. If even 10% of the owners/managers/CEOs out there netting a cool quarter-million or more would do that? You're probably talking hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created. Hundreds of thousands fewer people collecting unemployment. Hundreds of thousands more people paying taxes.

I assume in our me-first, "what's mine is mine" culture, it'd never fly. But as a CEO myself (who nets nowhere near $250,000/year...but has high goals and aspirations), it's something I think I could give serious consideration to going forward. What say the rest of you? Of course, everyone in the FFA is leading lifestyles of the rich and famous...burning Benjamins in the fireplace to keep warm! ;) But do any of the rest of you think you could do it? Even if society told you that you were nuts...and that you should keep every last dime for yourself?

How long did you guys talk about getting the Oil Companies off the government teat? Or Israel? Or defense contractors? Or farmers?

Anyway, obvious holes in your theory/plan, first being companies generally hire who they need, not who they can pay for.

Oh yes...we certainly did talk oil companies, defense contractors, farmers, etc. (not Israel though). Remember, I'm "Chairman Mao" here in my small rural farming community (and in the FFA, apparently)...even though I used to get railed on when I lived in St. Paul and Minneapolis for being "too conservative." LOL.

And yes, companies hire based upon need, not who they can pay for. I guess the question though was "what if they didn't?" I'm CEO of my company...can hire/fire whomever I want, whenever I want. I know lots and lots of other people who are in a similar position...where if they wanted to allocate resources to X, you simply don't allocate as much to Y. Small businesses, as well as corporations, are comprised of people. And the people in those organizations who control and allocate resources have some say in the matter. And in the Doing Good Dept., is $25,000 more in their own pockets better for society than adding one more employee? And for those who are religious, which approach is more in-line with what Scripture might call us to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, I'm "Chairman Mao" here in my small rural farming community (and in the FFA, apparently)...even though I used to get railed on when I lived in St. Paul and Minneapolis for being "too conservative." LOL.

Sounds about right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those who are religious, which approach is more in-line with what Scripture might call us to do?

Scripture calls for us to figure out how to get the poor off of the government teet, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would work if you found enough businesses owned by people similar to you. Good luck and I hope you can find them. I guess this is like the Bill Gates pledge your billions to charity thing, except on a much smaller level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.