The Entitlement Mentality

cj44

Electoral Member
Sep 18, 2013
740
0
16
Re: Entitlement Mentality

Once again, you are already into the second half of the discussion: what does the individual owe society?


Also hard to pursue them when you're hungry, naked, and unsheltered, yet you deny that people are entitled to food, clothing, and shelter. So why is defence such a big deal?

You are not entitled to defence or safety. You said so yourself. You are entitled to life (until it ends), liberty, and the pursuit (not the achievement) of happiness. Not safety or defence.
It is the governments responsibility to PROTECT its people. I would not use the "entitlement" language to describe government's responsibilities.

And, really in the USA people are rarley in need of food, shelter, clothing etc. Vast majority of those in need get provisions from the governement. On top of that, charities provide the rest. I do however, see a real need for those suffering mental illness. I feel we have thrown those people under the bus. If we keep imagining the "poor" are in need of food, shelter, clothing, etc. Those in real need will never be tended to. To be "poor" in America means free school lunches, food stamps, section 8 housing, free phones, and a myriad of other services including medicaid - yes we do provide health services to those who cannot pay for it. It is time we stop pretending that we Americans leave our "poor" to roll about in the gutter. Thousands of services and welfare programs exist for them.

Society at large, people you haven't entered into trade and/or contracts with, you are not entitled to anything from. Government does not fit that bill, as they have catalogued, billed, and police you. For that, you are entitled to expect things from them.



lower corporate taxes, and remove the education that individual tax payers pay for.... without lowering individual taxes? That's backwards.



Current market conditions mean that if you work for a publicly traded company, any and all spare revenue is shunted over to shareholders, whenever and wherever possible. THAT is the competition they are in. THAT is their priority. Giving corporate tax cuts does not translate directly into higher pay for workers. It simply translates into more profit for the company. What they do with that profit is not guaranteed.
I suppose if people are committed to believing that corporations are the big bad wolf, there is no changing there minds.

Yes, we can lower individual taxes as well.

So, if corporation choose to share their profit with the shareholders that is somehow immoral? How about you think about becoming a shareholder yourself????? Why is that a bad thing?
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,327
4,028
113
Edmonton
I now have a new respect for Kutcher. This isn't the first time he's said something that makes complete sense to me. Bravo!!


JMO
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Re: Entitlement Mentality

I suppose if people are committed to believing that corporations are the big bad wolf, there is no changing there minds.

Yes, we can lower individual taxes as well.

So, if corporation choose to share their profit with the shareholders that is somehow immoral? How about you think about becoming a shareholder yourself????? Why is that a bad thing?

What does my portfolio have to do with your assertion that we are not entitled to anything from our government? You're kind of bouncing around.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Re: Entitlement Mentality

I suppose if people are committed to believing that corporations are the big bad wolf, there is no changing there minds.

Yes, we can lower individual taxes as well.

So, if corporation choose to share their profit with the shareholders that is somehow immoral? How about you think about becoming a shareholder yourself????? Why is that a bad thing?

A corporation has only 1 legal responsibility and that is to maximize ROI for shareholders. Some CEOs or Boards of Directors will inject some moral or social conscience into a corporation but the only obligation is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. Lowering their tax rate will only put more money in the investors' pockets.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,327
4,028
113
Edmonton
The role of government is, I believe, as follows: building and maintaining of roads/highways, education, protection (military), legal/judicial system, healthcare (Canada), social services. I think that's pretty much it. Obviously, one can "nitpick" other items but, for the most part, they likely would fall under one of the above-mentioned categories anyway.


Insofar as CPP and EI, those are not entitlements since we (and our employers) do contribute to them.


I think that just about covers it.


JMHO

By the sounds it, some people seem to think that shareholders get all the profits every year. While shareholders do want a ROI, companies also require re-investment in the business so that they can continue to operate and compete. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in business for very long. How would, for example, the car companies bring out new vehicles every year if they didn't invest funds into new technology and R&D? How would oil companies like those in the Oil Sands be so much more efficient in green technology if they didn't invest in new processes?


It makes me mad that, now-a-days, being a big corporation is bad. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye. Are there bad corporations - likely; but to cast all of them as bad simply being disingenuous.


JMHO
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
It makes me mad that, now-a-days, being a big corporation is bad. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye. Are there bad corporations - likely; but to cast all of them as bad simply being disingenuous.

I must have missed where people were bashing business.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
Ashton Kutcher in Twitter battle with Walmart.............




Ashton Kutcher heard about the Walmart in Canton Ohio holding a food drive for its own employees, and took to twitter to protest it.

The following exchange ensued:



Walmart is your profit margin so important you can't Pay Your Employees enough to be above the poverty line? http://t.co/...
— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) November 19, 2013

Walmart replied to Kutcher’s tweet with the following:

.@aplusk It’s unfortunate that an act of human kindness has been taken so out of context. We're proud of our associates in Canton.
— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) November 19, 2013

I LOVE his response:
@WalmartNewsroom you should be proud of your associates but I'm not sure if they should be proud of you.

— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) November 19, 2013
@aplusk We know you believe in opportunity like we do & we'd love to talk to you more about it. http://t.co/...

— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) November 19, 2013
@WalmartNewsroom you had 17 billion in profits last year. You're a 260 billion$ company. What are we missing? http://t.co/...

— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) November 19, 2013
@WalmartNewsroom Walmart does a lot of great things but it needs to be a leader on this issue as well.

— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) November 19, 2013
Then Walmart threw their statistics at him to try and win the day:
@aplusk We think you're missing a few things. The majority of our workforce is full-time and makes more than $25,000/year.

— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) November 19, 2013
@aplusk Also about 75% of our store management teams started as hourly associates & they earn between $50,000 and $170,000 a year on avg.

— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) November 19, 2013
@aplusk Lastly, every year, we promote about 160,000 people to jobs with more responsibility and higher pay.

— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) November 19, 2013
@aplusk We know we can always get better as a company. This year we've made providing more opportunities for our associates a top priority.

— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) November 19, 2013



Ashton Kutcher vs. Wal-Mart: Epic Twitter clash rages over poverty wages - Salon.com
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: Entitlement Mentality

If we keep imagining the "poor" are in need of food, shelter, clothing, etc. Those in real need will never be tended to. To be "poor" in America means free school lunches, food stamps, section 8 housing, free phones, and a myriad of other services including medicaid - yes we do provide health services to those who cannot pay for it. It is time we stop pretending that we Americans leave our "poor" to roll about in the gutter. Thousands of services and welfare programs exist for them.

Let's not forget spa treatments and subsidized vacations!
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
Bloomberg discusses why Corporations are having a hard time shaking their entitlement mentality which starts the ball rolling downhill.......




It seems that welfare queens are back in the news these days. The old stereotype was an inner-city unwed mother -- that’s dog-whistle-speak for black -- having multiple babies to get ever bigger welfare checks (throw in a new Cadillac and the myth is complete). Regardless, welfare reform of the 1990s ended that narrative.

No, the new welfare queens are even bigger, richer and less deserving of taxpayer support. The two biggest welfare queens in America today are Wal-Mart and McDonald's.

American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. As it turns out, McDonald's has a “McResource” line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms receiving taxpayer subsidies? The short answer is, because they can. The longer answer is more complex and nuanced.

Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart are engaging in perfectly legal behavior. The system was set up long ago in ways that failed to imagine companies doing this. Yes, they are taking advantage of the taxpayer, but they are also operating within the law.
Which means it is time to change those outdated rules.

The simplest solution is to raise the minimum wage. If full-time employees are living below the poverty level -- especially those with children -- its no surprise they are going to need public assistance. Raising the minimum wage over a period of time will eliminate much of this corporate welfare. The costs will be slightly higher prices at fast food restaurants and low end retailers.

The next proposal is more severe: Charge back the amount of public assistance any employee receives to the company he or she works for. It would be separate from tax filings, and simply be a direct penalty charged to the firm. I doubt there is much political will for this proposal, but I can see some people -- especially on the Left -- supporting it.


more

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,327
4,028
113
Edmonton
Apparently, the fight against poverty that was started 50 or 60 years ago hasn't worked. The only solution is better education and less kids. But until that happens, poverty is here to stay!

JMHO
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Re: Entitlement Mentality

So. . . in a civilised society in the 21st century, like Canada, exactly what is every person entitled to? And how should a civilised society go about delivering those entitlements?

The majority is entitled to what it can vote for itself, and the supermajority can even entrench its entitlements into the constitution.have i got it right?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Apparently, the fight against poverty that was started 50 or 60 years ago hasn't worked. The only solution is better education and less kids. But until that happens, poverty is here to stay!

JMHO

Depends on who you ask.

Many of the entitled will propose that the solution is to gouge societies earners even deeper, all of the logic under the guise of 'fair share'.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Depends on who you ask.

Many of the entitled will propose that the solution is to gouge societies earners even deeper, all of the logic under the guise of 'fair share'.

Would you agree/disagree that the middle class has been squeezed economically over the past 2 decades or so?
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Sure I would, but that squeeze is not limited to the middle class... Essentially, any group that is deemed to have disposable income is targeted to pay for the entitlements of society

Would you agree that we have a serious problem in Canada regarding those that are often overlooked, the working poor. Many Canadians are living payday to payday, and not as one Liberal once stated spending their money on beer.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Would you agree that we have a serious problem in Canada regarding those that are often overlooked, the working poor. Many Canadians are living payday to payday, and not as one Liberal once stated spending their money on beer.


To start, I generally don't buy into generalizations, but that practice does go both ways.

You're going to have to start including some definitions here for this discussion to proceed... The descriptor of 'those that are often overlooked' is an extremely broad category and is highly subject to individual interpretation.

In addition to the above, there also has to be some kind of baseline that we can work from. I'm sure that you would agree that the cost of living in Toronto is very different from the cost of living in a place like Sundre, Olds or Rocky Mountain House (AB examples for those of you outside of AB). Attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all formula is an ineffective solution.

So, this takes us back to the fundamental issue of 'entitlement'.. How do we define it? Do we attach certain responsibilities to all members of society regardsless of their earning potential or ability? What is deemed the base level of subsistence? Does society apply any restrictions and or expectations in exchange for support?

The lists go on, including how far do we push the 'haves' into the corner before they suffer?... I believe that this is one of the larger factors that was in your initial question about increased pressure on the middle class
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
No doubt. But in the end, someone has to foot the bill
yeah us...as long as we have shares in Walmart and McDonalds I guess we might get a tiny portion back. I should check with my investor...just to make sure I am getting a kiss while they screw me... lol