You are making less and less sense bro. In this idealic time you are talking about we had more freedom and less government intrusion, yet you are complaining about a ruling that grants a tiny swath of corporations a very narrow exemption in a very narrow set of circumstances. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't even realize it. We were better off with more freedom, but we are worse off because the government is allowing a narrow exemption to their intrusion in our lives. That is your arguement, and it is a bad one.
Those fuckers were taxed like a mother fucker too. Wait are you making a kerosene point because they fought electricity. I think it was Carnegie who backed Edison, and Rockerfeller was trying to stop him, anyway... There has to be checks and balances. Corporations are here to make money, bottom line fuck everything else, if they could make arsenic a childhood food tomorrow they would. No one can tell us that corporations don't have the government in their back pockets. Go look at who donates to who and then look at what those politicians stances are.
How about shitty jobs? How could you miss that this solution is a direct correlation with your solution to a job you don't like--just get another job. Well, if you don't like paying income taxes--just get another country. Not a good solution is it?
It saddens me that someone as well read as you cannot tell the difference between a choice freely made and an action mandated by law.
Mandates are good, though some are bad. Nothing is absolute in this world. Freedom is a myth. People must be governed.
Is there a mandate that prevents you from seeking a better tax haven elsewhere? Is there someplace where work is an option? Your point was that you have a choice to leave a job if you don't like it. You can also leave the country if you don't like it. Neither is a practical solution. Everybody has to have a job. Everybody has to pay taxes. It's very simple.
Well, right now, roughly 40 percent of our population doesn't have a job and 47 to 49 percent don't pay Federal Income Tax...a lot of that by choice. That is pretty simple too right?
Well, roughly 40% of our population is retired, disabled or housewives. Do you find this surprising? Unemployment rate is only 6%. No it's mostly by the tax code. Most of that 47% is working people who submit 1040's. They just make so little money that the same standard deduction that you and I take covers all of the tax they owe. The rest of the 47% are the ultra rich, who take advantage of offshore tax havens, tax credits, write-offs, charitable donations, and other avoidances. All we need to do is change the tax code. Simple, eh?
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that people chose where they worked and freely agreed to their compensation plan. If that is not the case then your point has merit. Since that is exactly the case your point is silly. If you don't get the compensation you like from your employer you work somewhere else. You don't get the government to beat up your employer.
I understand what you said the first time. You don't have to keep repeating yourself. The point that you missed is that the same solution applied to your income tax objection reveals some of the flaws in "just leaving". Are you still here? It's off to Dubai with you! You assume that everyone can just quit their job and find another one. Perhaps your profession is that mobile, many others are not. If a business is a diocese or a convent or a religious radio station, then a prospective employees should have a reasonable expectation that there will be religious requirements to their employment and benefits. But with a non-religious public business like a hobby shop there is a reasonable expectation that you will not have to conform to an employers religious beliefs in order to work. That crosses over into discrimination. What if a fabulously rich Saudi bought the controlling interests in Wal-Mart and began requiring female employees to wear head scarves? Religious discrimination or employers prerogative?
