Jobs are a RIGHT, not a privilege. All are entitled to employment.

reply to post by James1982

As to your example:

If I damage your property, you actually do not have a right to collect those damages from me; I have an obligation to reimburse you for those damages. In actuality, thus far, I have never been able to collect against someone who has damaged my property (and yes, it has happened and I have tried, to the extent of obtaining a judgement that was worth less than the paper it was wrote on). If I had a right to collect, then there would have had to be a mechanism by which I could collect.

I do agree with your assessment overall, only not with the issuance of a right. Property tax, heck, any tax on simple ownership of a commodity, is troubling: it indicates a lack of ownership in direct contradiction to the concept of private property. Of course, if one considers that the property is accessible via public roads and (usually) has access to public services (fire departments, police, etc.), it follows that since these services and improvements are paid for with public funds, someone benefiting must also do their share to pay for the services and improvements.

On the subject of hunting rights on ones own property... unless that property is fenced completely and a claim is made to the wildlife that cannot leave the property, the wildlife is not the sole property of the landowner. A deer on my property may easily cross onto the property of another, for example. Thus the wildlife is not the property of a specific landowner, but of the citizens in that area. As such, the restrictions are proper to ensure no one individual harms the others by over-harvesting the wildlife.

Not really disagreeing, but rather pointing out the other side of the debate.

I will agree that property taxes are far far too high in most places and should be either dramatically lowered or dropped altogether. I am lucky to live where my property taxes are far less each year than a single tank of gasoline.

TheRedneck

reply to post by James1982


Or how about property taxes are unethical and violate the principle rights of land ownership?

Employment is NOT a right. Working for someone else is not an entitlement. That notion is silly and childish. An employer hires you based on his/her/it's needs and not yours. Employees are a by-product of a profitable company. The more profit that those employees can bring in the more the company can do, and therefore the more employees it can hire based on it's new set of needs.

Thats it. Period.

As far as property taxes vs. income you have an interesting approach to this. But government provided jobs makes no sense as that would require government to take over every aspect of the economy. Doing away with property tax in general isnt a terrible idea.

One dynamic not mentioned yet is that there are jobs... but you have to be skilled at them. Plumbers, electricians... how about retail managers...

I just saw a listing for a Grocery manager for a company with "general stores" up in Alaska.. admittedly the areas they serve are remote... but you stand to make $60,000 a year and they pay relocation and housing...

Or how about a retail manager in NC... good pay, benefits, health, life, dental, stock, retirement... but you work most holidays and weekends... and alternate morning and evening shifts...

How about back door receiver... receive all deliveries... verify and check in and put into the inventory... no weekends... no nights.. but the pay is not as good as above... still get benefits...

Our company opened a store up recently in aneighboring large town about an hour away... we went through 2 receivers in less than a week... "Oh, it's too hard." Actually had one that went to lunch and didn't come back...

As a manager and retail veteran of 26 years... most people want to start off as CEO... it doesn't work that way. Or they do not realize that retail work is not mindless robotics... it is a hard job and challenging.

Have you considered employing yourself? Taking a talent or skill and using that to initiate your right of employment.

Realize that rights are two sided... you have a right to employment, and if your skills are not there... the potential employer has the right to say No.

Also, most of what you think you need... you do not need. If there is a genuine conspiracy in society and culture today... it is manipulating you and me and anyone else into thinking they need or have to have something.

Most of what we think we need is set by standards that we agree too.. not forced into... but agree to.

Many have college debt...Why? to go to college so you could get a good job... Horse Stuff. You can get a good job without a degree... but you need skills and an ability to work and think.

My brother works for a major enzyme producer and makes damn good money... graduated with a trade in autobody from the community college.

I need a big house and a new car... Not true... so not true.

Ever notice that when you stop for gas, you usually get a snack and a drink or soda...Why?

Manipulation... it happens all through life. Have a good credit score...Why?

To borrow money and go into debt... without good credit... you can't borrow. You will have to pay as you go and stay out of debt... But isn't that good... sure is.. manipulation.

We complain about the system and then freely and voluntarily jump in...

Thus, by living on the fringes of the system, you are less a part of the system... and then you are more free to do what you want and exercise your right to employment...

The problem with your theory is that, at least in the US, you do have a right to employment. Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on age, race, sex, orientation or any other factor. Everyone has a right to be employed. The problem is that there has to be a job for you to be employed in. You have to apply to that job, meet the requirements and beat out everyone else who is applying for that same job. As it stands right now, there simply aren't enough jobs to go around.

Part of the problem is that so many people go to college every year and they come out expecting a well paying comfortable job in the field which they studied. Decades ago there was a greater diversity of employment. People found jobs that ran the gamut from farming to industrial manufacturing all the way up to high level corporate positions. The thing is that we don't have this diversity anymore. There are far too few "low end" jobs and simply not enough "high end" jobs to fill the demand.

The other problem I have with what you've said is that you assume everyone wants to work. This simply is not the case. Plenty of people are truly content to not work and live off of what ever social welfare, inheritance or windfall they may enjoy.

People like to bad mouth Social Darwinism and I'm not really defending it but it makes a few valid points. Society may be better off if we simply let those who are incapable of providing for themselves fail (this goes the same for businesses) so that hard working and determined people have a better chance. Rather than spending billions supporting people who never contribute to society, we should probably (as cold as it sounds) let them decide to either work and provide for themselves or starve. It really is against our best interests to continually support the weaker links in our social chain.

Now, having said that, we DO need to ensure that wages are fair and livable. This gives the hardworking and capable people the ability to provide for themselves. When you have a situation where wages are simply a joke and no one can ever hope to live off of their salary then we end up where we are today. Far too many people are dependent upon the government and social welfare programs despite the fact that many of them would much prefer to be self sufficient. Working conditions must be good, hours should be fair and pay NEEDS to be adequate.

People like to crap on Capitalism but it really is the only economic system which gives hardworking, smart and determined people the chance to move up in the world if they play their cards right.

To sum it all up, you do have a right to employment but do you really want or deserve that employment? Will that employment even be enough?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Should the government provide the employment, there exists another problem: the wages to pay the employee must come from taxation.

As long as the employees hired by the government are employed doing productive endeavors then the cost will pay for itself.

For instance I could see cooperatives formed and initially funded by the government to return industries that have left the country. Textiles, manufacturing, etc. Sell the goods back into the market to cover the cost and pay back the government for their initial investment. The argument is usually that they won't be able to compete and they will be inefficient. Pay can be structured to ensure they work as hard as is reasonable. I think without the profit motive, but with a productivity motive instead, these cooperatives will be able to be quite competitive against even 3rd world manufacturers.

The bottom line is If the private companies don't provide enough jobs it is the governemnts responsibility to step in and help create them. They don't need to run the cooperatives, just help them get off the ground. The rest will take care of itself. As a country with real unemployment near 15% we need to start making here whatever we can.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I'm not really talking legally, but more in a moral sense. I realize morals are an extremely subjective thing, but the idea that if you do damage to someone's property, that person has a right to be compensated is fairly universal. Does anyone here disagree with that idea? Many times this is actually backed up by the law, sometimes it is not. I'm speaking in a philosophical sense. Perhaps I should have put this thread in philosophy and metaphysics, I just figured it would be more out of place there than here.

Perhaps part of the issue is that I'm taking a philosophical ideology and applying it to the real world, which confuses people as to whether I'm talking specifically about something the US government should ACTUALLY do, or something that, following the ideology, should be done, but in reality actually shouldn't,and wouldn't. If that makes sense.

Good point on the subject of game not really belonging to the landowner, unless the game is fenced in and literally is property of the land owner. But again, I'm coming at this idea in a more abstract manner instead of a real-world legal standpoint. Perhaps people are taking it the wrong way, if so that would be my fault for failing to place it in the proper section, or at least explaining the context in which I'm presenting these ideas.

As I've already said multiple times, I'm not actually proposing that the government employ anyone and everyone. Simply saying, that in a moral and philosophical sense, it's unjust to require income for life, without guaranteeing a means to earn income. Doing so would violate our basic right to life. A person can live on nothing but their own labor, providing food, water, and shelter for themselves without any need for money or government intervention. But such a lifestyle is forbidden by the government. You cannot do it legally. If the government were to allow a person to live off the land and support themselves by themselves, this wouldn't be an issue.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by James1982

 

Or how about property taxes are unethical and violate the principle rights of land ownership?

In the least possible words that's exactly what I'm saying. I am expanding upon that simple idea and presenting it from another angle. Instead of arguing the validity of property tax, I'm taking property tax as a given, and then going from there and saying what SHOULD be done in a moral sense IF property tax is going to exist. I'm not supporting property tax, and not supporting the moral implications of property tax as it relates to the responsibilities of the government that I'm talking about.

It's as if someone was doing something that you don't agree with, and you say "well if you are going to do XXXX, then at LEAST you could XXXX"

That's not saying you are in favor of the person doing that specific thing, and then taking the additional actions that you suggest. In fact it's the opposite, it's saying you disagree with the actions being taken, but if those actions ARE already being taken, then your suggested ones should also be taken to lessen the negativity of the original action.

reply to post by James1982
A "right" is an individual issue.

A job cannot be a "right" because it requires the saacrifice of another to provide for that person.

A "right" should never infringe on another persons freedom.

So OP, you are sadly mistaken.

reply to post by projectvxn


The first part of your post is just an (accurate) depiction of the way the job market works. But that's not the point. A private company's goal is to earn profit, and it hires employees to help generate that profit. The difference here is the goal.

On one hand, with a private company, the goal is to generate income for the company (and it's owner) When I talk about the government being responsible for guaranteeing employment, the goal is not to generate income for the company, the goal is to generate income for the employees. Is this a feasible business model? Absolutely not. Would this work in the real world in any way at all? Absolutely not.

That's why I'm not truly suggesting this actually happen. I'm attempting to illustrate how it's not moral, fair, right, etc to require a person to generate income in order to live. If you require a person to generate income in order to live, you have two options. Either life is not a right, or life is a right along with employment. The current model the government has created intertwines life with employment. You cannot have life without employment. So if the government agrees that life is a right, than employment too has to be a right. There is no other options.

Which is why I say abolish property tax. This would allow a person to live WITHOUT generating income. And because of that, the government would have zero responsibility to provide jobs for the populace.

If you disagree that a person has a right to a job, then you must agree to abolish the property tax. Either that, or you believe that nobody has a right to survive. You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


This thread is not at all about me personally. I have done many different types of work in my life, always made a living and supported myself. I currently have changed directions and am doing very well, better than I've ever been. So this isn't a "I'm out of work and expect the government to give me a job" type of thread, although I can totally see how it could possibly come across as one.

Funny you mention receiving positions. In the past I have years of experience with receiving. While receiving may seem simple on the surface, it takes someone who is very attentive and thorough. If you are doing receiving in an extremely high-volume face paced environment, those qualities are even more valuable. Some people can go fast, and some people can be accurate, but to find someone that can do both at the same time is difficult.

Most receiving positions have a high turnover rate. In my opinion (as someone with years of receiving experience, as well as years of experience being supervisor of receiving departments) this is due to two factors. Number one is lazy employees. People think of receiving as a skill-less labor position. They are used to just using their bodies and not their minds. They expect to just float through the day without putting forth any real effort or concentration. Such employees are worthless and are either fired soon, or quit soon because they can't deal with the pressure.

The second factor is management failing to reward quality employees. There are a lot of receiving positions out there, but few that pay well or treat employees well. This is because most upper management people are used to the type of employees I just described. They don't expect to obtain any quality employees, so they don't provide the pay or work environment a quality employee would demand.

Receiving is the backbone of any manufacturing operation. Inventory control is crucial to running a manufacturing plant efficiently and receiving is the first step in inventory. If you have poor quality employees in receiving it's going to cause problems in every single aspect of the chain.

As I said before most upper management people are used to crap receiving clerks, so they pay and treat their receivers poorly. This leads to loosing a quality employee when they are lucky enough to find one in the first place. Which simply perpetuates the cycle of lower expectations and lower performance.

My first supervisor role in the receiving department was in one such company. I started as a regular clerk, and after demonstrating that I was able to not only accomplish my tasks with great competence, but I was able to change the entire department for the better. I was very quickly promoted to supervisor where I made many changes that positively affected the business. I received a reward that year for employee contributing most to the success of the company or something along those lines. I streamlined the entire inventory control and receiving process to the point where we were able to operate with half the staff and accomplish more in less time.

So what went wrong? The company, while recognizing that I was a valuable asset, refused to compensate me as a valuable asset. I was paid poorly compared to my performance and what I offered the company. So I left for another receiving supervisor role at a different company. I kept in contact with many people that still worked there, and was informed that after I left the place started to fall apart. Major contracts with customers were cancelled because of orders not being filled on time. They had to double the receiving staff to compensate for my departure.

Shortly after starting my new job I had a long meeting with the receptive president of the company. I communicated to him that in order to have a top of the line receiving crew I needed more pay for my workers, and more respect and freedom for them as well. I promised to weed out the bad ones and give him the best crew his company ever had. This worked, and I made changes at the new company that produced increases in productivity and profits that were even greater than at my previous job.

I was very well compensated for what I did, earning far more than industry standard for my position. Same with the people under my supervision. But we performed to a level greater than the expectation of the president. The product our company made was very specialized, and after said product basically became redundant due to new technology and methods the company had to shut down.

I'm drifting off topic a bit but I'm trying to illustrate that your ability to earn income isn't always dependent on your skill or work ethic, but many times dependent on your employer's willingness to compensate you properly for your work. Unless you are able to find a better company, many times you are just SOL.

Originally posted by beezzer

A job cannot be a "right" because it requires the saacrifice of another to provide for that person.

No sacrifice required at all. Private companies are not the entity that forces citizens to generate income in order to live, the government is. Therefore it's the government's responsibility to provide jobs, not private companies.

Originally posted by beezzer

A "right" should never infringe on another persons freedom.

I totally agree. Although nothing I am suggesting is infringing on another person's freedom, not once did I state that private companies should be forced to hire people.

Originally posted by beezzer

So OP, you are sadly mistaken.

You are free to believe that, but considering I have addressed the two points you brought up, and showed you how what I propose doesn't conflict with what you said, I think you should reconsider.

reply to post by James1982


I understand your premise. And as I said its an interesting one. However, even if property tax were abolished there is still the need for income in our society in order to eat, heat and cool our homes, pay for property we buy, transportation, and medical care. Nothing comes for free because work itself is not free.

reply to post by projectvxn


The difference I see is you can barter for all of those things. I myself have bartered for dental work.

Try bartering for your tax bill?

The government wont like it very much if you send them two bushels of grain and a score of beaver pelts.

If you could barter your taxes then the income wouldnt be necessary.

If the government is going to set up all these artificial constraints then the government should guarantee that you can meet their artificial constraints by either providing that income or a means to that income.

reply to post by enjoies05


Who ever said they all even wanted to work? NO they just want the money .. they hired 50 new employee's at the place my friend works.. they all went threw orientation. Some didnt show up the 1st day.. most the rest quit with in a week.. was way harder than they thought.. none are still there.. WORK? no.. just money is what they want.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Bartering is still payment. There is still work involved.

While bartering may work within certain microcosm of.economic activity, when you're dealing with ever.more conplex economics the system is simply not workable.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You don't work you don't have to pay taxes.. even if you do work. I know people who never pay, they move to often to be found and work under the table, there is always a way around most stuff.. I am still hoping for the day she gets tagged.. I have even tried to help.. payback is a bitch..

reply to post by projectvxn


Of course there's work involved but it's your work free of income tax, free of employment for employments sake.

So many people just take any job they can get because of these taxes threatening to take their homes away.

A set tax means you have to meet a set income or else.

No set tax means your production isnt mandated on a time scale.

I wouldnt have to get together X number of dollars a week because some entity holding all the guns says so.

It's more than possible to live completely independent of food bills, electric bills, water bills, etc.... yet the one bill you can never escape is the tax bill.

Even the Amish have to pay property taxes and they have to do pretty unethical things to pay them.

Maybe so ... but if your a lazy ass then no thanks.

Besides ...Obama is president. Why would you even bother to work when he will give you healthcare..put gas in your car... pay your mortgage.. and give you and your illegal neighbor food stamps.

Wow, way to go to the many folks here whom have completely missed the main message of the op. I notice its the same folks who ALWAYS find the need to go out of their way to constantly defend the most crony ideas of capitalism possible. Greed and love of the almighty dollar over everything else in life will drive you to become BLIND to seeing the actual intended message of threads I guess.

For those who cannot grasp anything from the OP other than thinking that he/she is belittling your crony-capitalist love (NOT TRUE capitalism but your love of CRONY capitalism by the way) he/she is simply using it [color=cyan]to SUPPORT the main idea that PROPERTY TAX should NOT be enforced by law without that same LAW ENSURING us that we can MEET such FORCED OBLIGATIONS. If that cannot be arranged, then forcing us to pay property taxes SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED by law.

But heck, just let your love of your crony capitalism get in the way of seeing what the OP is getting at.

And by the way to you PARROTS of the Right who CONSTANTLY chirp "socialism this", and "socialism that" with everyone who corrects you, I support TRUE capitalism but DESPISE crony capitalism by the way. You save your glen beck and hanity PARROT chirping especially the HUGE majority of you parrots who have NO IDEA what socialism means anyways. .

WOW. SIGH.