Will new Seattle City tax discourage pain physicians?

[deleted480308]

obviously, you seem to have a high level of self worth. unfortunately, this discussion has nothing to do with envy. im not talking about poor people envying the rich.

it has to do with those of the lowest rungs of american society not being able to afford basic essentials, of the 43 million neighbors living in poverty. of those working, the growth of the company is not partly going to help them - unfortunately, for the most part, it is completely going to support the 1%.

additionally, poverty is not a character weakness. some of the strongest people i know have lived their lives in poverty. unfortunately, the social and economic forces work against them.




fyi Cuban does give to the poor. so does Gates. Zuckerberg states that he will eventually give away 99% of his facebook stock that is left.

its not even about the Waltons, who are richer than Gates. as noted above, its about the fact the poorest arent getting paid well enough, or are disincentived to higher education, etc...

How does someone's inability to afford something create a right to take it from someone else?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[clubdeac]

obviously, you seem to have a high level of self worth. unfortunately, this discussion has nothing to do with envy. im not talking about poor people envying the rich.

it has to do with those of the lowest rungs of american society not being able to afford basic essentials, of the 43 million neighbors living in poverty. of those working, the growth of the company is not partly going to help them - unfortunately, for the most part, it is completely going to support the 1%.

additionally, poverty is not a character weakness. some of the strongest people i know have lived their lives in poverty. unfortunately, the social and economic forces work against them.




fyi Cuban does give to the poor. so does Gates. Zuckerberg states that he will eventually give away 99% of his facebook stock that is left.

its not even about the Waltons, who are richer than Gates. as noted above, its about the fact the poorest arent getting paid well enough, or are disincentived to higher education, etc...

Duct I understand where you're coming from however a large proportion of these people have put themselves in the situations they're in by bad lifestyle choices. We don't owe the guy with HIV who has 10 kids he doesn't know from 10 different women anything. I seriously had a 40 y/o patient with this exact scenario. Guess who's paying to raise this bastard's kids....you and me! If anything he owes me some $$$$

 

[Ducttape]

How does someone's inability to afford something create a right to take it from someone else?

who exactly is saying that it is about taking away from someone else?

perhaps, it is best to look at a unequal share of the profits are going to the upper management/bosses, and not enough to the workers. Cuban hits on this point exactly.

why do nurses and most doctors make peanuts for what they do, yet hospital CEOs are raking in millions?


and club, it plays in to our narrative that these are bad people or they made bad choices. remember, however, that many of these bad lifestyle choices were the social norm in the adject environments that they grew up in.

after all, using your example - what chance did those 10 kids have from the very start? was it their bad lifestyle choice to be born, most likely in to poverty, definitely in a 1 parent home, possibly with a lifelong disease? what they know, the social norms and mores, influence what they do, and more likely than not they will be and do what their father was and did.

 

[deleted480308]

who exactly is saying that it is about taking away from someone else?

perhaps, it is best to look at a unequal share of the profits are going to the upper management/bosses, and not enough to the workers. Cuban hits on this point exactly.

why do nurses and most doctors make peanuts for what they do, yet hospital CEOs are raking in millions?


and club, it plays in to our narrative that these are bad people or they made bad choices. remember, however, that many of these bad lifestyle choices were the social norm in the adject environments that they grew up in.

after all, using your example - what chance did those 10 kids have from the very start? was it their bad lifestyle choice to be born, most likely in to poverty, definitely in a 1 parent home, possibly with a lifelong disease? what they know, the social norms and mores, influence what they do, and more likely than not they will be and do what their father was and did.

let me clarify......are you just saying that voluntarily a company should equalize salaries to a greater degree? or are you implying there should be a use of govt force to make it happen?

 

[Ligament]

obviously, you seem to have a high level of self worth. unfortunately, this discussion has nothing to do with envy. im not talking about poor people envying the rich.

it has to do with those of the lowest rungs of american society not being able to afford basic essentials, of the 43 million neighbors living in poverty. of those working, the growth of the company is not partly going to help them - unfortunately, for the most part, it is completely going to support the 1%.

additionally, poverty is not a character weakness. some of the strongest people i know have lived their lives in poverty. unfortunately, the social and economic forces work against them.




fyi Cuban does give to the poor. so does Gates. Zuckerberg states that he will eventually give away 99% of his facebook stock that is left.

its not even about the Waltons, who are richer than Gates. as noted above, its about the fact the poorest arent getting paid well enough, or are disincentived to higher education, etc...

I did not realize the "fact" that poor Asians and poor Jewish people and poor Nigerians were disencentivized toward higher education. Maybe you should remind them they are not supposed to work hard and get an education to raise themselves in the socioeconomic strata. Remind them to suck on the government teet for the rest of their lives.

 

[Ducttape]

In reverse order:

1. kind of a nonsensical response, lig. go reverse racist.

you choose not to see the poor asians or jewish people, disadvantaged at birth, by location.

Asians in poverty:
Asian-Americans Have Highest Poverty Rate In NYC, But Stereotypes Make The Issue Invisible | HuffPost

The 'model minority' myth: Why Asian-American poverty goes unseen

The Growing Poverty Crisis That Everyone Is Ignoring

Jews in poverty:
Have You Ever Heard of a Documentary on Jewish Poverty? | HuffPost

Jewish Poverty Skyrockets in New York — Doubles in Size Since 1991

The Ignored Jewish Poor


2. to sb247 - yes. companies should voluntarily make their employees happy, healthy, invest in them and make them work harder by providing greater incentive to work. the government shouldnt step in... but the current climate (something that the government could influence) is one that companies focus entirely on short term profits and funnel them to the highest salaried individuals, rather than long term growth. look at all these companies in financial distress with ungodly payouts to CEOs and owners.

 

[deleted480308]

2. to sb247 - yes. companies should voluntarily make their employees happy, healthy, invest in them and make them work harder by providing greater incentive to work. the government shouldnt step in... but the current climate (something that the government could influence) is one that companies focus entirely on short term profits and funnel them to the highest salaried individuals, rather than long term growth. look at all these companies in financial distress with ungodly payouts to CEOs and owners.

If your opinion is just that you'd like to see voluntary changes in pay set up, I'm fine with the notion

If you start drifting into wanting "progressive" taxes, maximum salaries, or minimum wage I would disagree

 

[Ducttape]

what is the problem with increasing minimum wage, if companies are not going to start giving back (very few are giving back)?

5 facts about the minimum wage
"Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968".

cost of living increases have not peaked.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/31/cost-of-living-is-increasingly-out-of-reach-for-low-wage-workers.html
The most expensive city for families isn't New York not peaked.
"A new Economic Policy Institute report finds that, no matter where they live in the United States, minimum wage workers earn far less than they need to make ends meet.

Compiling data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Highway Administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and several other sources, the nonpartisan think tank found that the average cost of living in the U.S., excluding discretionary spending, is more than $65,000 a year for a family with two adults and two children. That's roughly $50,000 more than what a minimum-wage worker earns. The EPI also looked at the cost of living for single adults and found similar disparities."



or, for the sake of "fun", compare us to other countries.

did you know that it would take a Canadian single income family with 2 children making minimum wage 35 hours per week to get out of poverty? in France, it would require 17 hours per week.

the US? the richest country in the world? at current minimum wage, it would take 60 hours per week, 3.5 times that of France.


in the US, 1.5 million households (not people) are surviving on $2 per day per person.

could you?

sad.

 

[deleted480308]

what is the problem with increasing minimum wage, if companies are not going to start giving back (very few are giving back)?

5 facts about the minimum wage
"Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968".

cost of living increases have not peaked.

The most expensive city for families isn't New York not peaked.
"A new Economic Policy Institute report finds that, no matter where they live in the United States, minimum wage workers earn far less than they need to make ends meet.

Compiling data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Highway Administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and several other sources, the nonpartisan think tank found that the average cost of living in the U.S., excluding discretionary spending, is more than $65,000 a year for a family with two adults and two children. That's roughly $50,000 more than what a minimum-wage worker earns. The EPI also looked at the cost of living for single adults and found similar disparities."



or, for the sake of "fun", compare us to other countries.

did you know that it would take a Canadian single income family with 2 children making minimum wage 35 hours per week to get out of poverty? in France, it would require 17 hours per week.

the US? the richest country in the world? at current minimum wage, it would take 60 hours per week, 3.5 times that of France.


in the US, 1.5 million households (not people) are surviving on $2 per day per person.

could you?

sad.

so you were being disengenuous about when saying you were just talking about voluntary pay changes?

much like any other product, your labor and my labor are only worth what we can find a buyer willing to pay at that time. If we would rather not work than accept the price, we don't have an agreement.

There is no reason for a third party to tell me I can't offer, or accept, less than or more than a certain price

 

[Ducttape]

No I'm not. Unfortunately the current "way" we do business and the way the government "encourages" growth in a company is not one that favors most companies to focus on long term growth.

Also, our own social mores seems to encourage people to make big bucks at all costs, not "do what is right" for their employees. So big salaries for bosses and CEOs.



There are great companies out there. I know a lot about #2 on Forbes top 100 list. People at Wegmans stay for years - decades in a lot of cases. They support their employees. They pay well. And they are continuing to expand and open new stores. I have a bunch of Wegmans employees in the clinic. They to the individual speak of how the corporation supports them, helps them stay at work (for what it's worth, in the rare case or two that I've seen of a ex-Wegmans employee bash the company, I have almost always found corroborating evidence that the individual himself had significant issues, and could almost 100% eventually diagnose them as having borderline personality disorder).

The opposite is Walmart, which will barely pay minimum wage, and still insists on monitoring employee hours do that they cannot qualify for full time and employer covered health insurance.

Xerox and Kodak used to be like this too, until they tanked - not because of the workers, but because their managers and bosses didn't do their job.


A few weeks ago one of these employees told me that Walmart was going to fire her is she couldn't go back to stocking shelves. I asked why she couldn't work as one of the food greeters. She said they just said no. It's easier to fire and replace than to work with someone. A disposable commodity, not a person trying to make ends meet.



The point is that too many companies work on the margin with employees but not their admin, because employees are disposable in their mind.

I'm not sure what can be done to change this, because it has become embedded in too many companies culture. Does the government have a solution? No.

But unfortunately, companies are not doing anything about this themselves. They end up blaming their poor fiscal performance on poor employee performance and squeeze these employees even further, who are not invested in making the company better because the company is not looking out for them.they then fire the CEO and give them a huge by out and find another CEO with lures of huge incomes... but to pay them, they have to cut back on employees even further.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[nvrsumr]

1% of the 500 billion smuckerburg will die with still leaves 5 billion to his family. He can "invest" all he has now in whatever the Govt thinks best if he has the courage of his convictions.

 

[lonelobo]

My status is accurate, again do you have a substantive comment?

Oh the poor tax burden of a medical Student

 

[lonelobo]

Nothing is stopping Cuban, gates, zucker etc... from giving all their money to the poor. Very laudable.

Unfortunately they want to take my money instead of practicing what they preach.

God only wants 10%. No need for tax burden to be higher.

Really... Gates has only given $28 Billion so far... at least he is using your money for a good cause

 

[deleted480308]

Oh the poor tax burden of a medical Student

Steal $5 or $500, the victim still gets to be upset

 

[lonelobo]

Steal $5 or $500, the victim still gets to be upset

How about focus less on this nonsense and more on your medical studies....You have a whole career ahead of you where you can whine as a practicing physician

 

[deleted480308]

How about focus less on this nonsense and more on your medical studies....You have a whole career ahead of you where you can whine as a practicing physician

Principles are important, even those who aren't doctors yet have standing to point it out.

You could try defending your point instead of dismissing the messenger

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Oh the poor tax burden of a medical Student

Umm, dude ran a business prior to med school.

 

[DokterMom]

 

[Ligament]

That's great! Seattle taxes should not burden the rich.

 

[clubdeac]

What do they mean by tax burden? Which taxes are they speaking of. Certainly not the federal taxes which are far more oppressive for those making > 150k in comparison to the those < 25k. The federal income tax alone far offsets any disparity in burden b/w the rich and poor.

 

[Ducttape]

Four categories of state and local taxes and fees were taken into account: income, property, sales and automobile.

The researchers localized the data for each city beyond merely the tax rates. For example, when figuring out property taxes, they used median home values in each metro area and surveyed local assessors for details about assessment levels and homeowner exemptions and credits.

The researchers calculated how taxes would add up in each city for a hypothetical family of three — two working adults and one school-age child — at different income levels.


Turns out, Seattle is a tough town for the low-income family.


rent goes to property tax. For the Seattle family, that pencils out to about $2,500.


This family also gets hit hard by sales tax, estimated at more than $1,000. It’s not that they’re shopaholics. It’s because they’re paying Seattle’s 10 percent sales-tax rate — third-highest of the 51 cities.

Car-registration fees and gasoline taxes add $300 more per year to this family’s tax bill.


Of course, this low-income family doesn’t have to pay any state income tax — just like a high-income family. Washington is one of seven states that doesn’t tax any income.

I would have guessed that NYC would have been the worst...


addendum: in direct reply to your comment: "What do they mean by tax burden? Which taxes are they speaking of. Certainly not the federal taxes which are far more oppressive for those making > 150k in comparison to the those < 25k. The federal income tax alone far offsets any disparity in burden b/w the rich and poor."

there is always a disagreement about this aspect.

while I disagree with part of this article (the morality part), the other arguments are apropos.

Three Simple Reasons Why We Need Progressive Tax Rates

 

[cowboydoc]

I would have guessed that NYC would have been the worst...


addendum: in direct reply to your comment: "What do they mean by tax burden? Which taxes are they speaking of. Certainly not the federal taxes which are far more oppressive for those making > 150k in comparison to the those < 25k. The federal income tax alone far offsets any disparity in burden b/w the rich and poor."

there is always a disagreement about this aspect.

while I disagree with part of this article (the morality part), the other arguments are apropos.

Three Simple Reasons Why We Need Progressive Tax Rates

Duct, I respect your intelligent takes, even if I don't always agree, but you missed 'bigly' with that article. That was the worst argument for a progressive tax I've seen from a simple arithmetic standpoint, let alone the moral one that you discounted.

The 40k and 400k couple example going Dutch... If each paid 10% of their income for goods instead of the same amount, they would have nicer stuff. That advocates for a flat tax. The writer doesn't seem to grasp the difference between absolute amount and percentage. Also, are they arguing that the greater amount of taxes collected makes everyone better off?

 

[nvrsumr]

The only fair tax is a head tax. Everyone breathes the same air and uses the same roads. A flat percentage income tax for all is progressive as different individuals pay more if they make more. Higher tax rates for some is just theft.

 

[SeniorWrangler]

I don't think this is the right place to discuss tax policy. I will note that libertarian tax policy is a lot less popular in the country at large than it is among the elites.

 

[bedrock]

Progressive taxes should target the super rich because let's face it, CEOs, celebrity actors/singers, and professional athletes have all gamed the system.

I don't agree with punishing someone for working hard and thus making $150,000 instead of $90,000, but we should tax the h@ll out of people making more than a million dollars a year.

 

[hyperalgesia]

It is interesting that people have such a positive view of Bill Gates, who has 90,099,000,000 more than the average MILLIONAIRE. But they have a negative, competitive and bitter view of the other guy, who works his ass off every day to make ends meet to pay for his $30k boat...

 

[deleted480308]

Progressive taxes should target the super rich because let's face it, CEOs, celebrity actors/singers, and professional athletes have all gamed the system.

I don't agree with punishing someone for working hard and thus making $150,000 instead of $90,000, but should tax the h@ll out of people making more than a million dollars a year.

how has someone who made millions through legal voluntary transactions given up their right to property any more than anyone else?

how does the size of their income develop into immoral/unethical behavior to your judgement?

 

[SeniorWrangler]

The number of tax breaks increases dramatically beyond a certain income level; most physicians are in that awkward upper-middle-class level where they have to pay full freight on everything and fit in the highest tax bracket, but they don't have access to the really nifty tax dodges that multimillionaires/billionaires get.

 

[lonelobo]

The number of tax breaks increases dramatically beyond a certain income level; most physicians are in that awkward upper-middle-class level where they have to pay full freight on everything and fit in the highest tax bracket, but they don't have access to the really nifty tax dodges that multimillionaires/billionaires get.

This really depends on being self employed vs employed

 

[Ducttape]

The number of tax breaks increases dramatically beyond a certain income level; most physicians are in that awkward upper-middle-class level where they have to pay full freight on everything and fit in the highest tax bracket, but they don't have access to the really nifty tax dodges that multimillionaires/billionaires get.

yet we are more likely to be severely negatively harmed by changes to the tax code when it is more progressive. and I understand that these seem punitive.

imo, its not us as upper middle class that should be affected, although most of us are in the 1% - its the truly rich, those with incomes in excess of $1 million a year.


cowboy, because I haven't had a chance to respond - if that imaginary couple used flat rate to determine their goods, at say 10%, they would have $4,400. if there was a progressive tax rate, and the rates were zero % for the low earner and only 11% for the high earner, they would still be $4400. very small changes in rates for the more wealthy can make a huge difference. the moralistic argument is that the one not making a lot and doesn't have a lot to start with isnt as limited financially as those who are making a lot and have a lot of flexibility with regards to finance.


who on this forum buys lunches and food for their staff for meetings and celebrations?

who amongst us expects everyone - including MAs and secretaries - to chip in and pay their equal dollar amount share?

 

[deleted480308]

yet we are more likely to be severely negatively harmed by changes to the tax code when it is more progressive. and I understand that these seem punitive.

imo, its not us as upper middle class that should be affected, although most of us are in the 1% - its the truly rich, those with incomes in excess of $1 million a year.


cowboy, because I haven't had a chance to respond - if that imaginary couple used flat rate to determine their goods, at say 10%, they would have $4,400. if there was a progressive tax rate, and the rates were zero % for the low earner and only 11% for the high earner, they would still be $4400. very small changes in rates for the more wealthy can make a huge difference. the moralistic argument is that the one not making a lot and doesn't have a lot to start with isnt as limited financially as those who are making a lot and have a lot of flexibility with regards to finance.


who on this forum buys lunches and food for their staff for meetings and celebrations?

who amongst us expects everyone - including MAs and secretaries - to chip in and pay their equal dollar amount share?

Drastically different than the MA and secretary being able to jail you for not buying their lunch

The voluntary attribute is important

 

[Ducttape]

you are adding that part of the argument.

you can argue about the morals, and whether increasing taxes is morally appropriate. most of America apparenly feel that a true flat tax rate is not.

problem with just a voluntary contribution is that most of the 1% will not voluntarily give up their money (think Skirelli, or those CEOs from big pharma or insurance).

even if they did, it still wouldn't directly help the 99%, or more significantly, the bottom 25%. which is why of all the alternatives, I would favor improving low end wage salaries and incentivize poor people to work by making work more financially enticing.

 

[Ligament]

Just had a small business owner from Seattle on my procedure table. Owns a bar in a nice neighborhood, or what once was a nice neighborhood. Called Greenlake. The lake and his bar are infested with junkie tent cities. Driving business away. Theft into his business regularly. He has made less money every year due to increasing tax burdens and decreased business due to junkie encampments that the city of Seattle loves to create. Said he's selling his business and leaving Seattle permanently. He was born in Seattle.

 

[nvrsumr]

We know from Seattle experiment that increasing the minimum wage harms those they are trying to help, the working poor. Less hours and more automation. Like many liberal ideas it is well meaning but thought up by academic types who have never made a payroll( or even better not paid themselves for months to make a payroll then called greedy when they finally make some real money)

 

[lonelobo]

Just had a small business owner from Seattle on my procedure table. Owns a bar in a nice neighborhood, or what once was a nice neighborhood. Called Greenlake. The lake and his bar are infested with junkie tent cities. Driving business away. Theft into his business regularly. He has made less money every year due to increasing tax burdens and decreased business due to junkie encampments that the city of Seattle loves to create. Said he's selling his business and leaving Seattle permanently. He was born in Seattle.

So the Junkies are responsible for the large population growth in Seattle...interesting

 

[nvrsumr]

You should have seen the influx of "homeless" after weed was legalized in CO.

 

[lonelobo]

You should have seen the influx of "homeless" after weed was legalized in CO.

Guess the Homeless get surveyed more than I thought and apparently really like Denver

Denver drops from first to second best city to live in according to U.S. News & World Report – The Denver Post

 

[Ligament]

So the Junkies are responsible for the large population growth in Seattle...interesting

No, its mostly tech workers, but the junkie homeless population is way way too large and encouraged by the city to move here from other places. The junkie homeless population has skyrocketed. You guys would not believe the tent cities that are all over.

 

[bedrock]

Just had a small business owner from Seattle on my procedure table. Owns a bar in a nice neighborhood, or what once was a nice neighborhood. Called Greenlake. The lake and his bar are infested with junkie tent cities. Driving business away. Theft into his business regularly. He has made less money every year due to increasing tax burdens and decreased business due to junkie encampments that the city of Seattle loves to create. Said he's selling his business and leaving Seattle permanently. He was born in Seattle.

That's too bad. I would go running in Greenlake all the time during my fellowship. Had a good friend who lived there too.

Sad to see Seattle go down hill due to the hyper liberal political machine there.

 

[lonelobo]

Yes who wants to live a in a Liberal minded city they really suck... Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, Denver , NYC.......terrible places to live....

 

[bedrock]

Yes who wants to live a in a Liberal minded city they really suck... Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, Denver , NYC.......terrible places to live....

Great places to live preferentially attract hyper liberal people, who then actually makes these places progressively less desirable to live.

Few people live in these places due to the political environment, they live there DESPITE it.

For example, I live in San Diego and I'm in San Francisco this week, and really enjoying SF.

If you dropped SD and SF in the middle of the country, and you lost the great weather and fantastic outdoor activities, then far fewer people would put up with the high crime rate due to liberal crime policies, crazy housing prices due to housing projects repeatedly blocked by liberal government, the government interference in daily life due to liberal arrogance, and enormous tax burden of Socialist Republic of California.

 

[Ducttape]

We know from Seattle experiment that increasing the minimum wage harms those they are trying to help, the working poor. Less hours and more automation. Like many liberal ideas it is well meaning but thought up by academic types who have never made a payroll( or even better not paid themselves for months to make a payroll then called greedy when they finally make some real money)

the people that you are mentioning being affected tend to be those at entry level positions - ie college students, waitressing, or those brand new to the job market.

also, all examples given are with respect to changes to employment right after minimum wage changes are being made, and businesses are prospectively making changes based on their assumption that they will lose money.

so, perhaps we are "doing it wrong".

we should look at the australian or ireland model would be more apropos - increase minimum wage for those over age 21, or austria where there are different minimum wages based on occupation. and we should look at how our society devalues these low paying jobs such that businesses do not knee jerk cut employment when there is talk of decreasing profits.

 

[nvrsumr]

I would be 100% onboard with a tiered minimum wage based on age to not price low skilled teens out of jobs.

 

[deleted480308]

you are adding that part of the argument.

you can argue about the morals, and whether increasing taxes is morally appropriate. most of America apparenly feel that a true flat tax rate is not.

problem with just a voluntary contribution is that most of the 1% will not voluntarily give up their money (think Skirelli, or those CEOs from big pharma or insurance).

even if they did, it still wouldn't directly help the 99%, or more significantly, the bottom 25%. which is why of all the alternatives, I would favor improving low end wage salaries and incentivize poor people to work by making work more financially enticing.

The fact that a rich man might not give away their money isn't a problem any more than it is a justification to steal it through taxes.

It simply is not your money to make decisions about

 

[Ducttape]

whos decision is it to allow him to have the money in the first place?

every man lives in a society, with its unique norms and mores. society decides what is appropriate or not. the individual does not, even if he thinks he does.

 

[lonelobo]

Great places to live preferentially attract hyper liberal people, who then actually makes these places progressively less desirable to live.

Few people live in these places due to the political environment, they live there DESPITE it.

For example, I live in San Diego and I'm in San Francisco this week, and really enjoying SF.

If you dropped SD and SF in the middle of the country, and you lost the great weather and fantastic outdoor activities, then far fewer people would put up with the high crime rate due to liberal crime policies, crazy housing prices due to housing projects repeatedly blocked by liberal government, the government interference in daily life due to liberal arrogance, and enormous tax burden of Socialist Republic of California.

Nonsense, what makes these places great is the Liberal folks there .....you think Austin would be what it is today if it had a conservative mindset

 

[nvrsumr]

Austin has the best of both worlds. Business friendly state, lots of govt money to support UT.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I would like to see a reality show with a house full of socialists. An evenly divided currency, no external funding, and one machete...

 

[Ducttape]

end up sitting around singing Kumbaya, most likely. which would make me go hurt myself...

imagine the reverse - a house of die hard conservatives. of course, each gets to bring in his/her own arsenal, because of the 2nd amendment...

 

[deleted480308]

whos decision is it to allow him to have the money in the first place?

every man lives in a society, with its unique norms and mores. society decides what is appropriate or not. the individual does not, even if he thinks he does.

Society doesn't change what is appropriate, that's a moral relativism that meant slavery was once acceptable. It was never ever acceptable, it was only legal. Those two things are not related.