Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (10605)	2/2/2006 8:21:17 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

If your waitress is taxed at 15 % and your two dollar tip was 15% and your 1.50 is not, then you most certainly are taking something away- in more ways than one. She is being taxed at 15% on the value of your tip, because everyone, including the government, knows there is an expectation of a tip at a certain level, and you are leaving her less, so she is losing the difference between what is an expected and legally codified fee for service, and what you leave her, and being taxed on the loss as well. You could argue that the government is complicit in the fact that you are depriving the woman of the expected tip- but that's no way to escape responsibility yourself. You might have a reason for taking something away from her, but I don't see how anyone could argue in that circumstance that you aren't taking something away. Where there is an expectation of payment for a service, as there is when a waitress waits on you, then not giving adequate payment is taking something away. Everyone knows waiters and waitresses work at minimum wage because their patrons are expected to tip at least 15%.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (10605)	2/2/2006 8:51:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541791

Life is not all about being right - technically. Getting it technically right matters because clear thinking matters. When we finally give up the ghost on clear thinking, we're doomed. There is a difference between "I'm taking something away from her" and "I'm not giving as much as we used to." Taking something away from someone is obviously wrong. Perhaps those who claim it is taking something away subconsciously spin it that way because they are factoring in their value that it's wrong, as well, to not give as much as before. There's an obvious case to be made for it being wrong. The flip side of subconsciously factoring in that value is that you infer that the people who point out that it's giving less rather than taking away do not share your value that it's wrong, which may be invalid. IMO, if you want to make that case, then make it directly, don't twist it into something that it's not. Spinning it is either dishonest or inept and it contributes to the general dumbing down and partisanship that passes for political discourse today. Let Coulter do that if she wants to but do the rest of us have to emulate her?