So. Damn. Glad. Not. To. Be. American. Or. Live. There.
(entirely because of the religious fanatic stuff. And yes, In know there are other countries with crazier ideas about “gods” and shit).
A world without my weekly dose of american real life political satire would be a sad place. The EU has it’s on problems, but they always seems so insignificant compared to news like this xD
yeah, we don’t like it, but these actions have people all over the country in an absolute outrage. More than half of us think that this shouldn’t even have come to court in the first place (because it’s ridiculous to let a company dictate your life/health), and something WILL be done about it.
It’s not an American problem – it’s a an abuse by corporations and the Religious Right. By claiming you’re so proud to have nothing to do with the US because of this, you just sound like an edgy teenager.
Trust me, the Right may love this, but America does not, and we’re going to do something about it.
But the ‘Companies/Corporations are people!’ schpiel is a uniquely american problem. And if Corporations are people, they need to be held to the same standards as individuals. Like, say, held accountable for their crimes.
Some are arguing this decision will allow for that to happen – the punishment of a corporation for it’s crimes, but I doubt it will come to anything significant.
Normally I enjoy reading this comic but I have disagree here. 1) It is not all contraception that is banned just thing that are taken after the act, because “SOME” -not all- Christians believe that life begins at conception meaning sperm meets egg. 2) I personally think all group insurance -with the exception of immediate family- should be made illegal so we won’t have this problem after all why is a Company paying for your health insurance? It’s your health you should do that. 3) Within reason companies should be able to hold certain religious views because the owners or majority of owners believe in them and it is allowed based on that companies Operating Procedures otherwise we could say sue Chik-fil-a for being closed on Sundays.
Doesn’t the constitution says that you have freedom of religion in the whole country? Wich means, also in it’s companies? Totally ‘Merica…. I’m getting more and more confused about what you define as freedom. It seems it is the land of the trapped! Freedom to say anything, but only the things everyone else agrees upon. Freedom of choice, but keep it limited. Freedom of faith, as long as you are practising a form of Christianity. Ugh, glad I don’t live there.
No, the Constitution says that the government may not make decisions or pass laws based on religion. You know, exactly what this ruling did. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with individuals exercising their religion. We don’t allow that for good reason. How many human sacrifices are protected under that freedom? None.
What this decision does is undermine word for word what the Constitution says. And it’s because of uneducated asshats who never bothered to read the Constitution that things like this are happening and no one cares. The United States is about to become a lot easier to live in if you happen to be white and Christian. If you’re not, things are about to become a lot worse because of this ruling. Companies are now completely free to ban hiring Muslims or black people for religious reasons. They can block insurance plans that have coverage for transgender people for religious reasons. They can fire anyone for religious reasons. This is everything the freedom of religion was trying to prevent and now we live in a country without it. Congratulations!
We made something worse then religious extremists. We validated corporations as people, and then we let them have a religion. This is Religious Corporate Extremists.
Pssht, religions are all about brainwashing. Of course, schools are too. Teaching the kids about certain things and leaving out others. My schools pretty much ignored all of the wars or ‘Police Actions” we’ve been involved in where we came out less than smelling of roses. I had to look up Vietnam and Korea to see what those wars were about. I can only guess at what’s being taught about the war on terror and all that crap.
Yes they have access but must go through many more hoops to get it (thus they might not want to use it) also they are getting it on all of our dime now (government will pay). What it did leave open is all the other doors in which people can restrict people with their beliefs. I feel as though a floodgate has been opened and it will take a big motion to close it again.
I agree with purple. I identify with them partly because I too am a one eyed atheist. Lost the other to a rabid dog. So, the dog could be orange in turn.
There’s no reason for those women to not being able to choose any contraceptive method available for everyone else. This is wrong no matter how you look at it.
Not sure if this is happening to anybody else, but the site isn’t giving me an option to click forward to the newest comic. I had to get here from tumblr.
Also, there’s some sketchy-looking pickup-artist-techniques sort of ad up top linking to “thetaoofbadass.com”
“I had to get here from tumblr.” I could not get to this (the latest comic) by normal means, i.e. the buttons up top. I opened my bookmark of last week’s page and the buttons up top to load the new page didn’t work. But they do today. I have no idea what’s going on. Maybe I should just change the bookmark to the default page which always shows the latest comic.
I’ve already stopped shopping at Hobby Lobby. Now I have to find another cheap place to get my costume material because I make cosplay costumes D: Stupid close minded bastards!
Try Michael’s, Joann’s, Pat Catan’s, (all three are chain store competitors for Hobby Lobby in my area) or see if there’s any local shops to you. I think Walmart also sometimes has cheap fabrics, if you don’t mind shopping there.
Being from California, I always thought people like orange sock were a sad small few in the US. Then I moved to southern Utah for a few years and realized the alarming truth: there are a HUGE number of these kind of bigots in the US. I could go on for days about how absurd, illogical, and prejudiced the religious freaks are in this area. My only comfort is that as time goes by, it becomes harder and harder for people to cling to their outdated, discriminatory ways. I feel the US, as a whole, is behind the times in these manners because of the crap people we keep voting into power. And because of the prevalence of these backward religious zealots who are happy to deny others’ rights in the name of their faith. Thank you for this comic. It addresses my biggest facepalm-inducing moments regarding American society.
This hasn’t stopped Hobby Lobby from paying for their employees Viagra or vasectomies though. So, medical insurance in regard to sexual bits is ok by religion as long as it’s for a man.
And sometimes, there are actual Slippery Slopes that aren’t Slippery Slope Fallacies: http://ht.ly/yIjVh — “Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order”.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. And render unto God that which is God’s. And render unto those with less power than you a big old kick in the nads. No… Wait… the other one…
It isn’t quite as bad as it sounds, they didn’t object to providing all birth control, only two specific kinds of the morning after pill and two kinds of IUD, based on their belief that life begins at conception and therefore that any birth control method that destroys a fertilized egg is wrong.
It’s still not good, and it shouldn’t have happened, but Hobby Lobby employees aren’t being denied all birth control like a lot of people make it sound.
What happens when the next company is owned by someone who’s opposed to vaccines, or blood transfusions? Or if the next company to do this is owned by devout Catholics, who are against all forms of contraception and birth control? This is a dangerous precedent to set.
I agree completely. That’s the problem. The real danger here is the precedent set, but everyone (in the media) is just talking about Hobby Lobby instead. This is making the lesser problems (HL’s policies) look much worse than they are, while ignoring the real issue, which is where this could lead in the future.
Not only for employee health, either. Hobby Lobby had a very weak case both on the subject of contraceptives and on demonstrable ‘devoutly held beliefs.’ Ask yourself how many people in the US could make a good case for having well demonstrated being Christian or Jewish.
Then consider the economic repercussions of Exodus 22:25: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” Wait, companies can’t charge you interest?
Or maybe Deuteronomy 15:1-2: “At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.” Debts MUST be canceled every seven years, all outstanding balance forgiven?
Somehow I doubt corporations will hold any religious faith that doesn’t mean more money for themselves.
I just want to let you know, I wont read your comic any more. I’m sure your absolutely devastated I know, I’m just one reader in the whole internet. but here’s why. You are presenting a biased view of political action and not allowing free debate in your comments. I understand if you wanted to filter out obscenity so I accept you moderating the comments section, but you shouldn’t be scared if someone points out a flaw in your argument. You shouldn’t just delete and inconvenient comment from your page. I think you should really post a retraction for this comic. While I do believe that it sets a precedent which could be considered dangerous for future cases I don’t think you should demonize Hobby Lobby for their decision to try to continue to run their company as they chose. Here is a list of the contraceptives they do still offer in case you are interested in someone else’s opinion which may be different from your own
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
Actually, I just tend to remove comments that are abusive, derail reasonable discourse, or can’t even be bothered to be pleasant within their first time posting on our private site (which I feel needs added emphasis: it is a privately owned site that we pay for to distribute our content. It’s not a free-for-all platform and we have every right to moderate as we see fit). The reason we trashed your particular comment is that you decided to throw in snark about me taking a train to Butthurt Ville when you could have just disagreed politely.
Also: You’re wrong. If you would like to reread the comic, heck, not even further than the second panel, you’ll see what was said is: “SCOTUS granted Hobby Lobby the right to not cover any contraceptives through their employees’ insurance.” That is, indeed, an accurate statement. At no point in the comic was it said that Hobby Lobby doesn’t provide those, just that they have the right not to and I find that ruling objectionable.
As people who care very, very much for things like human rights, the separation of church and state, and the Constitution, we are allowed to lampoon (a better word, I think, than “demonize”) companies, institutions, and entities that we feel are harmful to those concepts. The amount of flak we’ve gotten for this comic has been amazing, usually from people who inexplicably seem to root for Hobby Lobby or wish for us to be grateful that they have graciously offered their employees some reproductive rights, just not all of them. I’m sorry that I don’t celebrate basic rights being eroded by saying, “well, at least there are some left!”
If even you can admit that this ruling sets a dangerous political precedent, I have to ask: why such persistent outrage at minor (perceived and non-existent) inaccuracies? Where is your heart really at in this debate?
Anyway, yes, there are several comments like yours sitting in the wings, claiming the same inaccuracies that simply don’t exist. Since you were so insistent, I chose yours to essentially answer them all. I don’t really feel like repeating the same information over and over again. I don’t mind disagreements and welcome criticism, but please, to you and to everyone else: do your goddamned research first, reread the comic at least once to make sure anything wrong was actually said, and then formulate your response in a polite, calm way. Or it will get trashed, unapologetically.
Consider this ticket to Butthurt Ville on me. My treat.
I feel like a lot of this argument is stemming from another problem that most people seem to overlook- why are private companies paying for individual’s Health Insurance in the first place? If I bought my own health insurance I could get whatever the heck I wanted (or at least it was easier to get something close to that before the health-care law mandated certain things) and no one would be able to tell me one farking cent that it was wrong.
There doesn’t seem to be any real logical reason for this whole shebang beyond the fact that it got started way back when (during a period of wage-freezes, I believe) and everyone’s just kind of been going along with it ever since. I mean, if they ARE going to pay for insurance, why just health insurance? I’m in good health, but my car-insurance payments are getting a bit annoying; can I trade in one for the other?
Personally, I don’t believe that companies should be obligated to pay for health insurance. I don’t believe they should pay corporate taxes either. I also don’t believe they should have “freedom of speech” as defined by the ability to donate to political causes either. I don’t think private companies are people, and I don’t believe that they should be treated as such, but above all I want it to be consistent.
They don’t have an individual’s freedoms, but then neither should they have a citizen’s obligations either.
In a way, I think we agree on a lot of points, but maybe from different sides.
For example, I agree that private companies shouldn’t be paying for (or be in charge of) individuals’ health care. I believe that’s the role of the government, just as it is done in the vast majority of developed countries around the world. We pay comparable taxes as most of them, but the funds are getting diverted away from infrastructure and social programs to (in my opinion) wasteful spending and interests outside of its citizens.
The reason that I don’t agree on an “every man for himself” stance in terms of health insurance is because insurance costs are astronomical in this country, partly due to unnecessary inflation of costs and partly to cover their asses in our litigation-happy country. When ACA came into being, K and I looked into private insurance for ourselves — being self-employed and on our own, as you preferred in your view — and the cheapest plans we could find would’ve cost twice of our monthly rent, every month. We have no preexisting conditions, are non-smokers, and live very low-risk lifestyles. Our state refused federal assistance to expand Medicare criteria, so we can’t even get that. That’s why I feel like I’m speaking from a very educated opinion that the free-for-all concept does not work in the health insurance reality we’re currently living in.
So, yes, I don’t think corporations should be treated like people, but they’ve done everything they can to assert that right, so why not expect them to inherit a little “personal” responsibility for it?
I concur on the “we agree but for different reasons” POV; I tend to take somewhat unusual stances on a variety of issues. (well they’re logical to me, at least)
Full disclosure- I tend to lean towards the idea of small or limited government. I believe that capitalism and the free market should take things as far as they possibly can, and only when that breaks down, THEN should the government intervene.
However, I don’t claim it’s because of philosophical reasons; I like to think that my view is objective (stop me if I start sounding overly pretentious) because in my experience, government seems to not do things as well as the private sector. And in some cases, they screw it up royally. It doesn’t take a lot of work to go on Wikipedia to find a lot of government projects or programs that went overbudget, out of schedule, weren’t as effective as they were supposed to be, or just backfired entirely.
The ACA, for example and IMO, is a mess. It’s 2000+ pages, to which they’ve added another 1000+ (not one of which has been approved by congress), it’s been the subject of two major Supreme Court challenges and numerous smaller ones, and it’s approval rating started out mediocre at best and has been slumping ever since. There are parts of it I like, and there are other ways that I certainly would have approved of the government working to improve health care, but what actually got done seems have been the worst of all possible worlds. It’s pretty much the epitome of the “good idea, poor execution” aspect of government intervention that I despise.
For example, saying “a full time employee is 35+ hours per week, and you must provide them health insurance, but for part time employees you don’t” just encourages companies to cut hours below that threshold. Instead, what about saying “a full time employee is 40 hours per week, and you must offer the same health plan to part time employees, paying a percentage of the premium equal to their percentage of full-time hours”. In other words, an employee who works 20 hours per week gets the same health plan, and the company covers 50% of the cost. That way it’s NOT cheaper to hire 2 part time people vs. 1 full time.
If I had my way, I would have kept letting the free-market handle health insurance and health care for the majority of people, and simply work on improving Medicare for serving the lowest level of the population that can’t obtain health insurance another way. Probably by determining eligibility via income, the same way the government subsidizes low-income housing or EBT cards for food.
I have my own experiences with health insurance, too. I hope your premium was so high because you live in a relatively low-rent area.
Even though I’ve worked AT the same company for 3+ years now, I technically work through an employment agency as a temp, and so I get paid by the hour, with no benefits. No vacation, no paid sick leave, and no health insurance unless I pay extra for it our of pocket.
I make a pretty good wage, I think, but because of the area I live in, my first 2 whole paychecks every month (I get paid weekly) go straight to rent. The third paycheck goes to other essentials such as electric, food, cable, dry cleaning, etc. My 4th and final paycheck every month covers 100% of my savings, my investment for the future, and my discretionary spending (entertainment, etc.). If I bought the cheapest available health plan (the bronze plan) through the ACA, the premium would eat up HALF of that 4th paycheck, my after-tax income, every single month. It would be about as much as pay for FOOD every month, but I eat every day, whereas I haven’t been in a hospital since the 4th grade.
Then I looked at my healthcare expenses. I have a once-per-year visit to the doctor for a full checkup. Physical, blood-work, cholesterol, EKG, the works. It costs me, out of pockets, roughly the same as 1 months’ premium. I visit the dentist twice a year for checkup and tooth-cleanings. Together, both visits are about the same as another month’s premium. And if I’m not careful, on average once per year I’ll have an allergic reaction which requires me to go to a 24 walk-in health clinic, and spend 5 minutes telling the doctor what’s wrong with me, the medicine I need, the dosage I need, and showing him the empty bottles from last time so he can write me a prescription. For this privilege, they charge me about another entire month’s premium.
Now, you are probably thinking- why don’t I just buy health insurance then? Because, the cheapest plan under the ACA has a several-thousand dollar deductible before it kicks in. I would pay 12 months of premiums, and then STILL pay 100% of my healthcare costs out of pocket. Even with the tax-penalty added in, I save thousands of dollars every year by NOT getting insurance. Literally, thousands.
Now, this does NOT mean I want the government to step in and make the plan cheaper. I already expressed my doubt that they can do things well. I want to be able to go to the private market and say “I need a plan with a high deductible and LOW premium, because I’m in good health and don’t need a lot of help. If I break my arm skiing, I can cover that. But if I get hit by a car while rollerblading and end up paralyzed from the waste down for the rest of my life, THAT’S where I need help.” And under the current laws, I can’t get that.
P.S. Sorry for the wall of text. I’m a mouthy bastard when I’ve been drinking.
And in some cases, they screw it up royally. It doesn’t take a lot of work to go on Wikipedia to find a lot of government projects or programs that went overbudget, out of schedule, weren’t as effective as they were supposed to be, or just backfired entirely.
It’s easy to find outliers on Wikipedia. Now lets look at some privatization disasters:
Private prisons. Seriously. We’re talking about an industry that creates an incentive to jail people, therefore lobbying for more and more draconian laws. Usually using “terrorism” or “drugs” as their trumpet. Even when the private company is simply providing services it can turn out badly. Aramark was supposed to save Michigan thousands of dollars a year in feeding their inmates. Now they have maggot infested food, workers smuggling contraband, inmate riots, and clandestine sexy-times.
Private military. Blackwater. Nuff Said.
Private hospitals. The catholic church is rapidly taking over hospitals. Those hospitals are prevented from offering or performing abortion in almost every circumstance. Women have died at these hospitals.
Charity vs. Government Welfare. The overhead of some of the best charities is around 90%. That means that, for every dollar you give, 10c goes to the people the charity is supposed to help. Welfare programs, on the other hand, have anywhere from 4% to 17% overhead (higher due to recent “drug testing” etc. requirements placed by Republicans on the programs). That means that, on average, a dollar of welfare spending gets 90c to the people who need it.
That’s assuming that the charity isn’t a “charitable trust”, which is quite literally just a tax dodge.
Privatization of public services removes the ability of the people (who should in theory “own” those services, as they are necessary part of society) to control how those services are used. At least we can try to vote to change how our government spends money. You replace a (more or less) accountable elected government official with an unaccountable executive.
What America really needs to stop the health care crisis is socialism like it’s done in Western Europe. Half the military budget could be devoted to health care instead. Of course that is never going to happen because socialism is *EVIL*.
Businesses pay for health insurance because back during WWII, massive labor shortages led to the passing of wage caps. To get around these wage caps, employers started offering benefits like insurance to attract employees. It’s a holdover from a less progressive (and much more white-washed) time in the United State’s history, and it needs to end. We need single-payer.
Corporations should pay taxes. They should pay taxes because the corporations are far more reliant on all the services taxes pay for than any individual payer.
The individual relies on infrastructure for themself. The corporation relies on infrastructure for it’s entire existence.
The individual relies on public schools for their own education. The corporation relies on education spending to provide it a skilled labor force.
The individual relies on police, fire, and paramedics for their own safety and health. The corporation needs those to protect its entire workforce.
The burden on public facilities posed by a corporation is far greater than any individual. Ergo the burden to pay for it should be greater on the corporation than the individual.
I don’t understand why we “need” a single-payer system for health care any more than we need it for anything else that is considered a necessity, or why it can’t be handled in a similar manner- free-market for most people, with limited government regulation, and government subsidy to pay for those who can’t get it another way.
would you say it’s a well-done piece of legislation?
I assumed my statement that we need single-payer would have been an indication that, no, I don’t think it’s a well-done piece of legislation. I think it’s a shit piece of legislation rammed through by a center-right president compromising with a radical-right congress.
And I assume from your previous statements that you don’t feel that people should be turned away from necessary care that they cannot afford.
Ultimately, single-payer is cheaper in the long run. The centralized payment system allows the payee to keep costs down. That means obscenely priced medications (like asthma medications) are cheaper. That means prevention is cheaper. And prevention is already cheaper than emergency rooms.
Most expensive emergency room visits are for chronic care problems that become acute. A stay for an asthma attack can run up to $10,000. A stay for psychiatric treatment can be $15,000 plus (this is from personal experience). Preventative care is much, much cheaper. And the fact is, whenever someone can’t pay for it, you end up paying for it.
The backlog of unpaid emergency room visits is expensive. Hospitals make up the unpaid bills by increasing costs, leading to insurance companies increasing their costs and deductibles. This increases the cost of your monthly and out of pocket expenses. And that’s when it’s not outright closing hospitals. Don’t get sick or injured in rural Georgia, for example, unless you’re happy with third-world quality of care (this is not an exaggeration).
Oh, that’s right. You’re healthy? You don’t get sick? Isn’t that like arguing that you shouldn’t have to pay social security because you’re not old?
Providing care is better for the health of the nation. It should be paid for by taxes. And those taxes should be progressive, like most taxes, so that the people who profit the most from a healthy population also pay the greatest share.
Wow, I consider the president to be a left-win ideologue. Clearly we have different views when it comes to politics. O_o
First, cost is only one factor to consider. the other two major ones being timeliness of care and quality of care.
Second, I believe that many of the issues you raise could be addressed by keeping the multi-payer, capitalistic system and just having a minimum of well-crafted regulation. That’s what competition usually does, and the U.S. healthcare system wasn’t exactly an archetype of free-market enterprise even before the ACA.
I agree that we need to find ways to bring prices, but again, the ability to easily move to a different provider would help with a lot of that. And there are multiple reasons why medical costs in the U.S. are high- such as the long time and large investment needed to develop new medicines, the high cost of litigation, excessive or unnecessary testing and prescribing, etc. It’s a multi-faceted problem that we need to address from many different angles.
My biggest concern with a single-payer system is that if you don’t like, there’s no way out, and as I’ve said, I don’t have confidence in the government to administrate it well. A single-payer system is effectively a monopoly, and those are notoriously bad at delivering quality service at good prices. And it’s not just from the point of view of the person getting the care- you want to work as a doctor or nurse? You get paid the government rate. You want to develop and sell new medicines? You pay what the government offers you.
AFAIK, the closest we’ve come to a single-payer system in the U.S. is the Veterans Administration, the one currently in the middle of a huge scandal over that fact that it wasn’t providing the care that it was supposed to, and that it was covering it up.
Also, what I’ve read about Canada (I think it’s mentioned in one of those links I posted up above) is that while they country isn’t experiencing an overall doctor-shortage, there is a LOCALIZED shortage in the rural areas, because, just like in the U.S., the doctors like to live where the people are.
I’d rather not get into the tax-issue, since we’re already wandering pretty far off-topic, except to say that while I’m certain I disagree with you over what direction to take it in, I do believe that the tax-code needs a massive overhaul.
We’ve been trying trickle down economics for forty years now, and the situation is getting steadily worse. Want more proof? Look at Brownbeck’s disaster in Kansas. Brownbeck cut top-tier taxes, and now Kansas is literally bottom state recovery-wise.
Taxes on the top 1% are the lowest they’ve been since WWII. If this is so good for the economy, why does the working class have to work harder, for longer hours, just to break even with the poverty line?
You want a good example of a country with minimal government involvement and unfettered corporations?
Somalia.
And I don’t know how you would consider Obama to be “left-wing”. In some aspects, he’s further right than Saint Ronald (Reagan).
Look at how he’s handled Wall Street.
Look at how he’s using drones.
Look at how hard he’s fighting information requests.
Look at how he’s handling the NSA.
This is how far the radical right has shifted the Overton Window, that anyone would seriously consider Obama to be “left-wing”.
“If this is so good for the economy, why does the working class have to work harder, for longer hours, just to break even with the poverty line?”
I answered this a bit elsewhere, but basically we keep moving the goalposts. I saw an infographic a while back that said that, in the 1950’s, on average it took 1 week of work per month to afford and average size house, and that today it took 2 weeks or of work per month.
So I decided to go and look up the average size of houses in the united states, and found that it’s about double today what it was in the 1950’s.
So you can afford the same sort of lifestyle they did 70 years ago by working the same amount of time, the difference is that that lifestyle is now in the bottom instead of the middle.
“Look at how he’s handled Wall Street.
Look at how he’s using drones.
Look at how hard he’s fighting information requests.
Look at how he’s handling the NSA.”
All the more reason to distrust government, IMO then. I’ve said I favor small government; I also favor an open government that doesn’t hide things from the people.
I broke my reply up into two pieces to try and stay focused on different subjects.
What burden does a corporation place upon “public facilities” that is greater than the sum of that placed by the people that make it up, and how does it benefit more than the individuals?
Don’t I benefit from the education that allows me to get a higher paying job? If there was no public education system would it be impossible for a corporation to train people to have the skills it required?
If the police and fire departments are already protecting me as an individual, how does it cost them MORE to protect me as a part of the corporation?
A corporation isn’t a thing; you can’t hold it in your hand or put it in jail if you don’t like it. A corporation is an idea- it’s a bunch of PEOPLE saying “we’re going to go into business together”.
And the reason it’s very difficult to tax a corporation is that the business has an almost infinite capacity to raise prices in response and pass those taxes onto the consumer of it’s services. It’s much easier for a corporation to do this than it is for an individual to pass an increase in income tax on to their employer.
All that I see corporate taxes doing is pulling money out of the revenue stream and causing a drag on the economy. If you DON’T tax a corporation, where do you think that money ends up? It either gets paid out to employees as salary, in which case it gets taxed as income. Or it gets paid out to investors as dividends, in which case it gets taxed as income. Or it gets reinvested back into the company to grow the it’s size, leading (eventually) back around to the first two options. Either way, the longer it flows through the economy before the government takes it’s cut the better.
My view on taxes is that the government should be looking to get by on a little as possible, not piling up bills on the electorate as high as they can possibly bear.
What burden does a corporation place upon “public facilities” that is greater than the sum of that placed by the people that make it up, and how does it benefit more than the individuals?
It’s not so much about “burden” as “benefit”. The infrastructure that allows you to become a skilled worker also allows corporations to profit off your work. Corporations receive greater benefit from the existing infrastructure. Ergo their responsibility to maintain that infrastructure should be greater.
A corporation isn’t a thing; you can’t hold it in your hand or put it in jail if you don’t like it. A corporation is an idea- it’s a bunch of PEOPLE saying “we’re going to go into business together”.
And yet a corporation has the “right” to “free speech” (unlimited campaign spending) and “religious freedom” (the ability to dictate how employee compensation is used by the employee).
And the reason it’s very difficult to tax a corporation is that the business has an almost infinite capacity to raise prices in response and pass those taxes onto the consumer of it’s services. It’s much easier for a corporation to do this than it is for an individual to pass an increase in income tax on to their employer.
No. This is simply wrong.
First, it’s wrong because the corporations cannot charge more than their consumer base will pay.
Second, it’s wrong because taxes, when done right, end up reinvesting in the working class, therefore increasing the working class’ buying power and enabling them to pay that higher price.
Third, it’s wrong because highly progressive taxes tend to encourage the top 1% to simply deal with lower paychecks. They can still buy anything they can dream of. But they sock away less cash in offshore bank accounts where the money simply sits and does nothing for the very country that enabled them to earn it. By aggressively taxing high earnings, but not money used for payroll or RnD, you encourage hiring and research. Plus government money goes into reasearch (like NASA, which provides 10+ dollars of economic gain for each tax dollar spent) or welfare (which improves the economy because it is literally money that MUST be spent).
Fourth, evidence simply doesn’t bear this out. For example, that same argument is used against minimum wage. But all actual evidence shows that increases in minimum wage translate into, maybe, 10c on the dollar, if not less. Wal-mart could afford to pay it’s employees enough to no longer need welfare, and it would only increase prices by a few cents on the dollar.
Something to keep in mind is that higher prices are not necessarily the worst thing in the economy. If you spend a dollar at walmart, most of that dollar winds up in offshore accounts of the Walton family. If you spend that dollar at a mom-and-pop grocery, most of that money stays in the local economy
All that I see corporate taxes doing is pulling money out of the revenue stream and causing a drag on the economy. If you DON’T tax a corporation, where do you think that money ends up? It either gets paid out to employees as salary, in which case it gets taxed as income. Or it gets paid out to investors as dividends, in which case it gets taxed as income. Or it gets reinvested back into the company to grow the it’s size, leading (eventually) back around to the first two options. Either way, the longer it flows through the economy before the government takes it’s cut the better.
As I hinted out before, most of that money doesn’t really go through the economy any more. People that rich don’t need more money to support their lifestyle, so in the end that money winds up in offshore accounts for very rich people to play penis-measuring contests with.
My view on taxes is that the government should be looking to get by on a little as possible, not piling up bills on the electorate as high as they can possibly bear.
The bills shouldn’t be on the electorate, but on the corporations who are profiting off the government.
I still don’t get how a “corporation” is benefitting. A corporation doesn’t live in a mansion or sail a yacht. A corporation is composed of PEOPLE who are benefitting, in which case I don’t see any reason to not let the corporation distribute the money and then tax it as personal income instead.
I already said I disagree that a corporation has the freedom of speech, for the same reasons just mentioned. A corporation doesn’t say anything; people do that. And I don’t quite understand your line about “the ability to dictate how employee compensation is used by the employee”. AFAIK, Hobby-Lobby employees are still free to buy and use any form of birth control or contraception they want. The ruling said that forcing Hobby-Lobby to pay for it would, because of their particular beliefs, be an unreasonable burden, AND that if the government wanted the Hobby-Lobby employees to have birth control they didn’t pay for directly, there where other ways to accomplish it.
(sorry, I don’t know how to do quotes)
“First, it’s wrong because the corporations cannot charge more than their consumer base will pay.”
Right, if you raise taxes to high, you can drive a company to bankruptcy. That doesn’t seem like a good option, though.
“Second, it’s wrong because taxes, when done right, end up reinvesting in the working class, therefore increasing the working class’ buying power and enabling them to pay that higher price.”
I’ve expressed multiple times my lack of faith in the government. How is your argument any better than me saying “capitalism, when done right, improves the quality of life for all people involved. For evidence, see the ascendancy of the U.S. and China, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.” This isn’t “trickle-down economics”, it’s “a rising tide lifts all ships”.
“Third, it’s wrong because highly progressive taxes tend to encourage the top 1% to simply deal with lower paychecks.”
Anyone who’s not currently living under a bridge and scrounging in the garbage for their next meal can “deal with a lower paycheck”. My income is almost exactly the national average (~$52,000 per year). Nearly 25% of my weekly paycheck is taken out before I ever get my hands on it. Somewhat coincidentally, what they take out of my paycheck every week is roughly the same amount of 1 month’s worth of premiums for the cheapest (Bronze) plan offered via the ACA. If I wanted to spend the difference of 2 paychecks, I could upgrade to the silver plan.
If you’re only logic when it comes to taxes is “they aren’t broke yet, therefor they can afford more”, then why not just cap income? I mean, who really needs more than 60 or 70 thousand dollars a year, am I right? (that was sarcasm)
“As I hinted out before, most of that money doesn’t really go through the economy any more.”
The 17 trillion (with a “T”) U.S. economy would seem to disagree with you there, chief.
“so in the end that money winds up in offshore accounts for very rich people to play penis-measuring contests with.”
Unless of course you’re the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, whose pledged the majority of his wealth to charitable causes. Or the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, who’s joined him. Or the other people they’ve convinced to join them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge
“The bills shouldn’t be on the electorate, but on the corporations who are profiting off the government.”
Newsflash- the electorate includes the 1%. And I’m still confused as to how you tax a corporation that is nothing more than a group of people instead of taxing those people directly.
I still don’t get how a “corporation” is benefitting. A corporation doesn’t live in a mansion or sail a yacht. A corporation is composed of PEOPLE who are benefitting, in which case I don’t see any reason to not let the corporation distribute the money and then tax it as personal income instead.
Because a lot of those earnings don’t get reported as “income”.
I already said I disagree that a corporation has the freedom of speech, for the same reasons just mentioned. A corporation doesn’t say anything; people do that. And I don’t quite understand your line about “the ability to dictate how employee compensation is used by the employee”. AFAIK, Hobby-Lobby employees are still free to buy and use any form of birth control or contraception they want. The ruling said that forcing Hobby-Lobby to pay for it would, because of their particular beliefs, be an unreasonable burden, AND that if the government wanted the Hobby-Lobby employees to have birth control they didn’t pay for directly, there where other ways to accomplish it.
Hobby Lobby was never “paying” for it in the first place. It was compensation offered to employees.
I’ve expressed multiple times my lack of faith in the government. How is your argument any better than me saying “capitalism, when done right, improves the quality of life for all people involved. For evidence, see the ascendancy of the U.S. and China, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.” This isn’t “trickle-down economics”, it’s “a rising tide lifts all ships”.
It’s also a lie that’s been repeated ad nauseum since Nixon, while the US continues to slip from it’s industrial end educational peak of the post WWII years.
If you’re only logic when it comes to taxes is “they aren’t broke yet, therefor they can afford more”, then why not just cap income? I mean, who really needs more than 60 or 70 thousand dollars a year, am I right?
Funny, because last I checked, 50k is a bit more “average”. About 75% more.
And standard deviation is a thing, cupcake (that’s sarcasm too, btw).
The 17 trillion (with a “T”) U.S. economy would seem to disagree with you there, chief.
With so much money, why are so many people below the poverty line, then?
Unless of course you’re the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, whose pledged the majority of his wealth to charitable causes. Or the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, who’s joined him. Or the other people they’ve convinced to join them:
You know, Hillary Clinton gives all her speaking fees to “charity”. It’s called the Clinton Foundation. And it’s primary purpose is the charitable act of keeping Chelsea in silver spoons.
Newsflash- the electorate includes the 1%. And I’m still confused as to how you tax a corporation that is nothing more than a group of people instead of taxing those people directly.
You reinstate the top-end 80-90% income tax rates. You tax the hell out of inheritances (that money wasn’t “earned”). Same with capital gains (more “unearned) money.
And for pity’s sake, you stop slapping the hands of the bankers responsible for the predatory lending practices that lead to the recession and actually start putting some in jail.
“Because a lot of those earnings don’t get reported as “income”.”
Something a vastly simplified tax system would help alleviate.
“Hobby Lobby was never “paying” for it in the first place. It was compensation offered to employees.”
What was? Health Insurance? And who’s paying the premiums on that?
“It’s also a lie that’s been repeated ad nauseum since Nixon, while the US continues to slip from it’s industrial end educational peak of the post WWII years.”
At the end of WWII the rest of the world had pretty much been bombed into rubble; seems like a kind of low standard to start from.
I fully support the need to improve our education system. But I would inject a healthy dose of capitialism into it, vis-à-vis something like Charter Schools. That way people get to send their kids wherever they want, and if a school does a bad job, no one is FORCED to go there, and it gets shut down.
And yes, we do less manufacturing than we used to, because as the population increased it’s wealth and education those jobs migrated over seas to countries that are at the point the U.S. was 60-70 years ago. Also, the cost of transportation has come way down.
“Funny, because last I checked, 50k is a bit more “average”. About 75% more.”
Sorry, I was mistaken. $51,000 is the median, not the average, and I’m more at about the 60% bracket than the 50%. Still hardly making me a member of the idle rich.
“With so much money, why are so many people below the poverty line, then?”
Because as our society gets richer the cost of living increases and we keep re-defining the poverty line upward. That’s how the government justifies supplying cell phones to people- because we’re so well off that not having one is fundamentally detrimental. The poorest people in the United States are head and shoulders above large chunks of the population in other parts of the world.
I think you see the government as a kind of Robin Hood figure, taking from the wicked rich and giving to the poor. I have a different view: who gets rich when the government gets involved? The government does. That’s why government employees have job security, benefits packages, pensions, and frequently pay-levels that the private sector never even approaches.
“You know, Hillary Clinton gives all her speaking fees to “charity”. It’s called the Clinton Foundation. And it’s primary purpose is the charitable act of keeping Chelsea in silver spoons.”
If the wealthy are going to keep dodging taxes, then simply adding more of them only penalizes the people who aren’t rich enough to dodge. I would say this is an argument for a vastly simplified tax system and a stricter definition of what constitutes charitable giving.
“You tax the hell out of inheritances (that money wasn’t “earned”).”
It was earned by someone, and it was already taxed when it was income. Why are we taxing it twice? All that seems to do is encourage people to never save anything, and instead just spend it all before they go.
“Same with capital gains (more “unearned) money.”
The way I understand capital gains taxes working is that if the value of a stock goes up, I need to pay taxes as if that money was earned income. If it goes back down, however, then I’m shit out of luck. I fully support taxing gains on stock as income, but only after it’s been sold and the money is in your pocket.
“You reinstate the top-end 80-90% income tax rates.”
So basically yes, you support a cap on income. You want people to do well, but not TO well.
“And for pity’s sake, you stop slapping the hands of the bankers responsible for the predatory lending practices that lead to the recession and actually start putting some in jail.”
One good way to encourage people to have more ethical lending standards is to (1) stop bailing out the banks when they fuck up, and (2) to stop having the government buy all those horrible loans off their hands via organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a true capitalist, I despise crony capitalism and would be glad to see it drug out behind the woodshed and have it’s kneecaps shot out.
The problem is that for to long owning a home has been an indelible part of the so-called American Dream, and politicians have been measuring success by how many people they can claim bought houses (took out mortgages) regardless of whether or not they had the financially resources and stability to pay for them.
The Waltons pull in over 7 billion (with a B) dollars net profit each year. Wal-Mart employees account for almost one billion dollars of yearly government welfare spending.
Assuming the 7 billion dollar figure is their post-tax income, then at the highest personal income tax rate of ~40%, the Waltons paid over 4 and a half billion dollars in taxes. Several times what was spent on their employees. But maybe they used some accounting tricks and only paid a marginal tax rate of 20%. Then it would still be more than twice the amount, easily enough to cover costs, assuming the government can spend less than 50 cents out of every dollar on administration.
Also, I shop at Walmart instead of a Mom-and-Pop store because what I spend $1 on at Walmart costs me $2 at the smaller chain. Cheaper prices benefit the populace in nearly the exact same was as does a higher income.
Those cheaper prices come at the cost of destroyed industries and outsourced labor. More of the two dollars you spent at the mom and pop shop would come back to you. Most of that dollar at Walmart ends up functionally leaving the economy.
Assuming the 7 billion dollar figure is their post-tax income, then at the highest personal income tax rate of ~40%, the Waltons paid over 4 and a half billion dollars in taxes. Several times what was spent on their employees. But maybe they used some accounting tricks and only paid a marginal tax rate of 20%. Then it would still be more than twice the amount, easily enough to cover costs, assuming the government can spend less than 50 cents out of every dollar on administration.
Walmart is a “closely held” corporation. It is owned by the Waltons.
The Waltons enjoy government enforcement of their property, allowing them to purchase and maintain outlets nationwide.
The Waltons enjoy a public highway system that allows customers to come to their stores to shop. It allows employees to come to their stores to work. It allows trucks to shuttle goods from warehouses and factories and farms to their stores so that they have goods to sell.
The Waltons enjoy regulated media networks, which simplifies broadcasting, making it easier for them to advertise their services across a wide variety of media.
The Waltons enjoy municipal fire fighting services, helping to prevent and reduce property damage.
The Waltons enjoy municipal police services, protecting their employees, their merchandise, and helping their customers feel safe enough to come shop.
The Waltons enjoy a public school system that ensures that their employees and customers will be literate and capable of purchasing higher-end consumer goods.
The Waltons enjoy a judicial system that enforces contracts and deals with criminal acts against them.
In short, the Walton’s revenue exists solely due to the protections and services paid for via taxes to the government.
First, how, exactly, do you suggest privatizing any of those services in a way that doesn’t fundamentally screw over the working class?
Second, what does Walmart give us in exchange for providing the infrastructure necessary for their very existence?
They move jobs (and therefore money) overseas. They use every tax dodge then can find. They pay the bulk of their employees poverty wages and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. They shuffle money off into overseas accounts where it does fuck-all for the American economy.
“Those cheaper prices come at the cost of destroyed industries and outsourced labor.”
Destroyed and moved are two different thing. My grandfather used to repair typewriters. That’s a business that doesn’t exist anymore. Ditto for horsedrawn carriages. It’s estimated that the embrace of Capitalism has lifted approx. 100 million people in China out of poverty; what makes it less legitimate for a dollar to go over there than to stay here?
“First, how, exactly, do you suggest privatizing any of those services in a way that doesn’t fundamentally screw over the working class?”
It would be very difficult…which is why I’ve never advocated that. Criminal Justice, Transportation, National Defense, and Education are all areas where I support the government getting I involved to some degree, depending on how and when the free market stops being able to provide adequate service.
Also, ever hear of a toll-road? Around where I live, an 18-wheel tractor trailer (say, one transporting Walmart Brand furniture, for example) pays a lot more to cross a bridge than a car does.
“Second, what does Walmart give us in exchange for providing the infrastructure necessary for their very existence?”
Every variety of consumer good at a cheaper price than we could get it elsewhere.
“They use every tax dodge then can find. …. They shuffle money off into overseas accounts where it does fuck-all for the American economy.”
If our tax-code wasn’t such a byzantine mess then it would be a lot harder to find those loopholes in the first place. For years politicians have been slipping more and more little things into rules to try and encourage their own moral code, or as a favor to friends, or even to protect their own fortunes. If they where less-involved then we wouldn’t have these problems. I don’t advocate for no government, but for limited government.
It’s completely true, it’s specific to women’s health care. So much for freedom from sexism because it’s illegal. Lemme just open this hole, and tie into a nice loop for ya… yeah, there ya go.
I don’t think employers should have the right not to cover contraceptives through insurance for religious reasons. I think employers should have the right not to cover anything for any reason.
Employers should have the right to offer whatever they want and withhold whatever they want. Just as you mentioned, we have the right to boycott those employers’ companies, as well as the right not to work for them.
True freedom allows people to make stupid decisions, discriminate, and treat other unfairly as long as they’re not using coercion, as long as the people they’re treating unfairly deal with them voluntarily. It’s the responsibility of others to use their freedom to not deal with people who make those bad decisions and to encourage other like-minded individuals to do the same (as you are doing now).
I just hate the government forcing anyone to make the right choice, that’s fascism, not freedom. People have to have the choice to voluntarily act with benevolence as well as the choice not to.
Then again, maybe I’m idealistic and unrealistic.
If companies are able to discriminate in hiring practices, pick and choose what health benefits to offer, or- continuing this line of thought- just pay wages as low as they wish with no regard for minimum wage, it would destabilize our whole economy.
In a perfect world, the Public would boycott companies with unfair practices, and people would choose not to work for them. They would go under while fair companies would still be supported.
But the world isn’t perfect. For example: I’m not a fan of Walmart as a company, they do some shifty things. However, if I want to drive anything less than 45 minutes to get groceries I really have no choice. Sure, I could stand on my ideals and drive 30 minutes out of my way… but is that practical?
As for hiring, and not working for companies you don’t agree with, most of us do not have that freedom. As someone who has been medicated for anxiety and depression for my entire adult life, my employment choices have been based almost entirely on whether or not I will receive benefits that cover my medication.
And, if you want to go down THAT road- because of my medication, I’m also unable to use hormonal birth control (it counteracts my anti-depressants). Which means I’m left with condoms being my only contraceptive option unless I want to have some sort of itch-fest trying to use spermicide. Well, there are situations when they’ll break or whatever.
So if a condom breaks (and since I can’t use hormonal birth control I have no back up in place) if I can’t get a morning after pill… I’m just screwed? Should I just cross my fingers and hope that the sperm that got through don’t swim very well? Oh- also, were I to get pregnant I would have to go off all of my medications and would be not only a suicide risk, but a homicide risk as well.
I’d love to live in a perfect world. But we don’t. Someone needs to enforce limits on companies and make sure that those of us that don’t have the money or health freedom to choose where we work or shop will still be given some sort of consideration.
Like I said, I might be too idealistic, but I value attempting to work for a perfect world whenever possible, on both a personal and societal level, at the cost of potential dangers along the way.
I have to respectfully disagree, removal of minimum wage would probably lead to a more stable economy in the long run (after an initial period of acclimatization) and create more jobs (specifically jobs that don’t exist any more because they’re not worth paying someone minimum wage to do). The “race to the bottom” of employers paying less and less is a fallacy, it’s been shown that wages have a tendency to rise in economies with less government regulation. Government regulation seems to lie at the heart of all economic problems. The last time my country’s economy was stable was when an economist was Prime Minister who deregulated and made massive cuts to government programs, allow the economy to fill gaps without social engineering.
One of the reasons why individuals don’t boycott or fight against companies they disagree with is because we have become dependent on “big brother” to do it for us. If there was less government regulation people would have more incentive to regulate themselves and each other.
Regulation can also be blamed for the fact that big businesses monopolize the market making it more difficult to boycott. Large, already established businesses already have the resources and lawyers to navigate the byzantine regulations, where as small or start-up companies suffer more from them. This is on top of the disgusting Cronyism of large, established companies to lobby (or straight-up bribe) politicians to enact regulation that favours them and hurts competition. Even ignoring that, though in your personal experience you may have no alternative, alternatives do exist for others, and despite the blocks put in the way by the government, technology is making it easier. Even groceries can be ordered online and delivered in many cases for comparable costs. Or one could view it this way, the cost of boycotting cheaper and convenient companies would be offset by the taxes one isn’t paying to have the government do the regulating for them.
There’s also an argument that if one truly believes in something, then they should suffer for it themselves, (not demand others suffer for them); though honestly my heart isn’t in that argument as I value practicality as well, but it is worth mentioning for anyone who does hold strong enough beliefs.
I have also suffered from anxiety and depression since I was an adolescent, I empathize with your desire to find an employer that offers coverage. I look for medical coverage as well when choosing an employer (despite my country having healthcare, it doesn’t cover the expensive anti-depressants I require). Medical insurance of this type isn’t required of companies to provide to their employers. The fact that my employer voluntarily provides it was one of the many factors that led me to choose them, along with other voluntary policies that lead to them being more successful and having more long-term employees than their competitors. Individual choice works in that example (though of course my personal experience is a poor example of how things work in general so that example my be worthless). Another option I have is to look into private medical insurance through a third party.
An interesting point is that my reliance on my company’s medical insurance (or any medical insurance) is actually bad for the economy and medical treatment in general. It would be best for me to stop being lazy and stupid and start a savings account for medical costs. My medication costs so much because of insurance. If medical insurance only covered the most expensive treatments instead of everything, then medicine would be over-all cheaper. The same could be said for my country’s medicare. My medication is cheaper if I take the generic (which is exactly the same in all ways except in brand name and cost), but with my insurance it cost the same either way. There is no incentive for me to shop around for the cheapest medicine. This means there are no market forces at work reducing the cost of medicine and treatment. This is a self-sustaining loop of people depending on their employers, insurance companies, and their country to provide medical treatment for them instead of taking care of themselves and forcing medicine to work like any other business; lowering their costs and improving their products. Individuals are no longer their customers, medicine now answers to big business and the government.
In the end, I have to side with personal responsibility. If something bad happens, then individuals should either help themselves, or stand by their convictions and voluntarily helps others at their own expense; rather than having the government use force and social engineering to decide who gets help and who suffers.
Again, this might be my own futile idealism, I am open to the possibility that I might be very wrong, but this what makes sense with me, and I hope my sharing isn’t a problem.
As a registered Conservative and past Committeeman of the local Republican Party, I would just like to say that you guys rock, and I completely disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The day we let employers impose their religious beliefs on employees is a dark day indeed. I am also a woman who used birth control until I was sterilized.
hi! i discovered chaoslife this week and fell in love instantly. the art, the humour and how you handle more serious issues (like in the comic above) – everything about it is great. also, you two are very cute but… not as cute as your cats! if i didn’t already have two of my own, i’d come and steal them /giggles/ so please tell them they have a new fan (even if they won’t care…). anyway, keep up the good work and all the best to you! 🙂
This skips out the fun fact that Hobby Lobby still buys most of their products from countries with forced abortions, and invests their portfolios mainly in companies that create abortifacient. So abortion is A-OKAY by them, unless they can save money by pretending it’s not.
Frankly, I feel that the last panel may be getting overlooked in the discussions here in the comments. While it is true that there are people who both agree and disagree with SCOTUS, most of the (initial) fallout will be people verbally (or textually, if that’s correct word) fighting which tends to escalate into swearing, abuse (verbal), shouting, and other symptoms of poor debating skills. However, I’m wondering how many people (particularly Americans) will allow this to affect other actions. How many who are opposed will continue to shop at these stores? How many who agree will provide them no extra business? Such is a means to make opinions over this issue (and others like it) more tangible.
And now for something a little less neutral. Up until this point, I’ve tried to keep my monologue from revealing my personal stance on the ruling. I stand opposed to it.
If the religion of the company is determined by the owners, what happens when a company is passed from religiously tolerant moderates to less tolerant fundamentalists? And if this is allowed to branch into other company decisions based upon religious belief, there are openings toward discriminatory practices. Could they refuse to hire an atheist? Could they fire an employee for having an abortion? Could they refuse holiday time for holidays of other religions (eg. Christian blocking Hanukkah or the other way around). Could they implement practices which (further) favor men since several religions establish men as dominant (the “breadwinner”)? These may seem like exaggerations (and maybe they are a little), but there are people who would push for this sort of stuff. And if the religion of the company can change with ownership, the policy changes could create so much headache. I’m talking about policy changes potentially of a national or even multinational scale. And how will this fit into world trade? There are companies based in the United States which have holdings in other countries. Is it fair to allow companies to impose religiously based policies upon employees in other countries which have not made this ruling (mostly because it hasn’t come up before)?
I’m writing this as a white male who was originally raised catholic and is currently living in the states (though I feel no especial allegiance). I mention this because statistically, I would be considered at a higher probability of agreeing with SCOTUS, yet I do not.
Finally, this is my first time commenting, but I’ve read this comic for a while. Among the things I find admirable is the willingness to approach issues like this. A person willing to calmly face such charged issues in a (semi)public manner is a rare and precious commodity. You are guaranteed to make some people angry, but you back your opinion and provide reasoning for it. I say that you stand as a fine spokesperson and I believe you’d make an excellent debater. But, best of all is the sheer contrast. Strips of a political/satirical nature in the archives are easily dominated by strips of a lighthearted nature. A person dedicated to amusement and informing/enlightening is something I’ve encountered only a handful of times. Thank you.
How long until a Morman wants to be allowed to legally deny employment to people who are black or native american? Any takers? My money is on two months.
First off, I’m a Christain. Doesn’t matter too much in this instance though. It bothers me how people try to stop women from receiving contraceptives. I personally am against abortion, but that’s my opinion, not one to force on everyone. The thing is, if you want to lower abortion rates, shouldn’t you make contraception more readily available? Birth control, condoms, and even the day after pill PREVENT pregnancy, not stop it. It’s sad how many uneducated people there are.
3…2…1….
So. Damn. Glad. Not. To. Be. American. Or. Live. There.
(entirely because of the religious fanatic stuff. And yes, In know there are other countries with crazier ideas about “gods” and shit).
A world without my weekly dose of american real life political satire would be a sad place. The EU has it’s on problems, but they always seems so insignificant compared to news like this xD
I’d be laughing with you if I didn’t have to live in the shitshow.
3edgy5me.
yeah, we don’t like it, but these actions have people all over the country in an absolute outrage. More than half of us think that this shouldn’t even have come to court in the first place (because it’s ridiculous to let a company dictate your life/health), and something WILL be done about it.
It’s not an American problem – it’s a an abuse by corporations and the Religious Right. By claiming you’re so proud to have nothing to do with the US because of this, you just sound like an edgy teenager.
Trust me, the Right may love this, but America does not, and we’re going to do something about it.
But the ‘Companies/Corporations are people!’ schpiel is a uniquely american problem. And if Corporations are people, they need to be held to the same standards as individuals. Like, say, held accountable for their crimes.
Some are arguing this decision will allow for that to happen – the punishment of a corporation for it’s crimes, but I doubt it will come to anything significant.
that’s why I’m building a rocket to the moon!
Normally I enjoy reading this comic but I have disagree here. 1) It is not all contraception that is banned just thing that are taken after the act, because “SOME” -not all- Christians believe that life begins at conception meaning sperm meets egg. 2) I personally think all group insurance -with the exception of immediate family- should be made illegal so we won’t have this problem after all why is a Company paying for your health insurance? It’s your health you should do that. 3) Within reason companies should be able to hold certain religious views because the owners or majority of owners believe in them and it is allowed based on that companies Operating Procedures otherwise we could say sue Chik-fil-a for being closed on Sundays.
I stand with atheist sock puppet Hooray for atheist sock puppet
You should have added a “Why do you hate America?!” bubble in the last panel.
Doesn’t the constitution says that you have freedom of religion in the whole country? Wich means, also in it’s companies? Totally ‘Merica…. I’m getting more and more confused about what you define as freedom. It seems it is the land of the trapped! Freedom to say anything, but only the things everyone else agrees upon. Freedom of choice, but keep it limited. Freedom of faith, as long as you are practising a form of Christianity. Ugh, glad I don’t live there.
No, the Constitution says that the government may not make decisions or pass laws based on religion. You know, exactly what this ruling did. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with individuals exercising their religion. We don’t allow that for good reason. How many human sacrifices are protected under that freedom? None.
What this decision does is undermine word for word what the Constitution says. And it’s because of uneducated asshats who never bothered to read the Constitution that things like this are happening and no one cares. The United States is about to become a lot easier to live in if you happen to be white and Christian. If you’re not, things are about to become a lot worse because of this ruling. Companies are now completely free to ban hiring Muslims or black people for religious reasons. They can block insurance plans that have coverage for transgender people for religious reasons. They can fire anyone for religious reasons. This is everything the freedom of religion was trying to prevent and now we live in a country without it. Congratulations!
We made something worse then religious extremists. We validated corporations as people, and then we let them have a religion. This is Religious Corporate Extremists.
You get a plus one.
How sad that people like orange sock exist in real life 🙁 I too stand with purple atheist sock puppet!!
They actually have camps where kids are taught the orange sock’s ideals. I thought religions were done brainwashing?
Pssht, religions are all about brainwashing. Of course, schools are too. Teaching the kids about certain things and leaving out others. My schools pretty much ignored all of the wars or ‘Police Actions” we’ve been involved in where we came out less than smelling of roses. I had to look up Vietnam and Korea to see what those wars were about. I can only guess at what’s being taught about the war on terror and all that crap.
Regrettably little. “Current events” is a subject rarely covered in high schools, along with any history more current than World War II.
Yes they have access but must go through many more hoops to get it (thus they might not want to use it) also they are getting it on all of our dime now (government will pay). What it did leave open is all the other doors in which people can restrict people with their beliefs. I feel as though a floodgate has been opened and it will take a big motion to close it again.
I agree with purple. I identify with them partly because I too am a one eyed atheist. Lost the other to a rabid dog. So, the dog could be orange in turn.
There’s no reason for those women to not being able to choose any contraceptive method available for everyone else. This is wrong no matter how you look at it.
dude, do you have any idea how much contraception costs?
lol, I saw this in my feed and thought it said SCOTUS sucks, not socks. Either way, yep!
Not sure if this is happening to anybody else, but the site isn’t giving me an option to click forward to the newest comic. I had to get here from tumblr.
Also, there’s some sketchy-looking pickup-artist-techniques sort of ad up top linking to “thetaoofbadass.com”
That’s because this is the latest comic…
“I had to get here from tumblr.” I could not get to this (the latest comic) by normal means, i.e. the buttons up top. I opened my bookmark of last week’s page and the buttons up top to load the new page didn’t work. But they do today. I have no idea what’s going on. Maybe I should just change the bookmark to the default page which always shows the latest comic.
So..amour separation of church and state..
I’ve already stopped shopping at Hobby Lobby. Now I have to find another cheap place to get my costume material because I make cosplay costumes D: Stupid close minded bastards!
Try Michael’s, Joann’s, Pat Catan’s, (all three are chain store competitors for Hobby Lobby in my area) or see if there’s any local shops to you. I think Walmart also sometimes has cheap fabrics, if you don’t mind shopping there.
Being from California, I always thought people like orange sock were a sad small few in the US. Then I moved to southern Utah for a few years and realized the alarming truth: there are a HUGE number of these kind of bigots in the US. I could go on for days about how absurd, illogical, and prejudiced the religious freaks are in this area. My only comfort is that as time goes by, it becomes harder and harder for people to cling to their outdated, discriminatory ways. I feel the US, as a whole, is behind the times in these manners because of the crap people we keep voting into power. And because of the prevalence of these backward religious zealots who are happy to deny others’ rights in the name of their faith. Thank you for this comic. It addresses my biggest facepalm-inducing moments regarding American society.
This hasn’t stopped Hobby Lobby from paying for their employees Viagra or vasectomies though. So, medical insurance in regard to sexual bits is ok by religion as long as it’s for a man.
SERIOUSLY?!
And sometimes, there are actual Slippery Slopes that aren’t Slippery Slope Fallacies: http://ht.ly/yIjVh — “Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order”.
So yeah. Plain crap decision from SCROTUM.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. And render unto God that which is God’s. And render unto those with less power than you a big old kick in the nads. No… Wait… the other one…
It isn’t quite as bad as it sounds, they didn’t object to providing all birth control, only two specific kinds of the morning after pill and two kinds of IUD, based on their belief that life begins at conception and therefore that any birth control method that destroys a fertilized egg is wrong.
It’s still not good, and it shouldn’t have happened, but Hobby Lobby employees aren’t being denied all birth control like a lot of people make it sound.
What happens when the next company is owned by someone who’s opposed to vaccines, or blood transfusions? Or if the next company to do this is owned by devout Catholics, who are against all forms of contraception and birth control? This is a dangerous precedent to set.
I agree completely. That’s the problem. The real danger here is the precedent set, but everyone (in the media) is just talking about Hobby Lobby instead. This is making the lesser problems (HL’s policies) look much worse than they are, while ignoring the real issue, which is where this could lead in the future.
Not only for employee health, either. Hobby Lobby had a very weak case both on the subject of contraceptives and on demonstrable ‘devoutly held beliefs.’ Ask yourself how many people in the US could make a good case for having well demonstrated being Christian or Jewish.
Then consider the economic repercussions of Exodus 22:25: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” Wait, companies can’t charge you interest?
Or maybe Deuteronomy 15:1-2: “At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.” Debts MUST be canceled every seven years, all outstanding balance forgiven?
Somehow I doubt corporations will hold any religious faith that doesn’t mean more money for themselves.
I just want to let you know, I wont read your comic any more. I’m sure your absolutely devastated I know, I’m just one reader in the whole internet. but here’s why. You are presenting a biased view of political action and not allowing free debate in your comments. I understand if you wanted to filter out obscenity so I accept you moderating the comments section, but you shouldn’t be scared if someone points out a flaw in your argument. You shouldn’t just delete and inconvenient comment from your page. I think you should really post a retraction for this comic. While I do believe that it sets a precedent which could be considered dangerous for future cases I don’t think you should demonize Hobby Lobby for their decision to try to continue to run their company as they chose. Here is a list of the contraceptives they do still offer in case you are interested in someone else’s opinion which may be different from your own
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
Actually, I just tend to remove comments that are abusive, derail reasonable discourse, or can’t even be bothered to be pleasant within their first time posting on our private site (which I feel needs added emphasis: it is a privately owned site that we pay for to distribute our content. It’s not a free-for-all platform and we have every right to moderate as we see fit). The reason we trashed your particular comment is that you decided to throw in snark about me taking a train to Butthurt Ville when you could have just disagreed politely.
Also: You’re wrong. If you would like to reread the comic, heck, not even further than the second panel, you’ll see what was said is: “SCOTUS granted Hobby Lobby the right to not cover any contraceptives through their employees’ insurance.” That is, indeed, an accurate statement. At no point in the comic was it said that Hobby Lobby doesn’t provide those, just that they have the right not to and I find that ruling objectionable.
As people who care very, very much for things like human rights, the separation of church and state, and the Constitution, we are allowed to lampoon (a better word, I think, than “demonize”) companies, institutions, and entities that we feel are harmful to those concepts. The amount of flak we’ve gotten for this comic has been amazing, usually from people who inexplicably seem to root for Hobby Lobby or wish for us to be grateful that they have graciously offered their employees some reproductive rights, just not all of them. I’m sorry that I don’t celebrate basic rights being eroded by saying, “well, at least there are some left!”
If even you can admit that this ruling sets a dangerous political precedent, I have to ask: why such persistent outrage at minor (perceived and non-existent) inaccuracies? Where is your heart really at in this debate?
Anyway, yes, there are several comments like yours sitting in the wings, claiming the same inaccuracies that simply don’t exist. Since you were so insistent, I chose yours to essentially answer them all. I don’t really feel like repeating the same information over and over again. I don’t mind disagreements and welcome criticism, but please, to you and to everyone else: do your goddamned research first, reread the comic at least once to make sure anything wrong was actually said, and then formulate your response in a polite, calm way. Or it will get trashed, unapologetically.
Consider this ticket to Butthurt Ville on me. My treat.
Hear hear.
Thank you for the source. I was getting ready to argue the shit out of this blog http://desertmoonstables.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/the-hobby-lobby-case-and-why-i-actually-agree-with-the-ruling/
I wanted some good sources of information while arguing. I found a lot, but that one is a nice silver bullet. So, thanks bunches!
I feel like a lot of this argument is stemming from another problem that most people seem to overlook- why are private companies paying for individual’s Health Insurance in the first place? If I bought my own health insurance I could get whatever the heck I wanted (or at least it was easier to get something close to that before the health-care law mandated certain things) and no one would be able to tell me one farking cent that it was wrong.
There doesn’t seem to be any real logical reason for this whole shebang beyond the fact that it got started way back when (during a period of wage-freezes, I believe) and everyone’s just kind of been going along with it ever since. I mean, if they ARE going to pay for insurance, why just health insurance? I’m in good health, but my car-insurance payments are getting a bit annoying; can I trade in one for the other?
Personally, I don’t believe that companies should be obligated to pay for health insurance. I don’t believe they should pay corporate taxes either. I also don’t believe they should have “freedom of speech” as defined by the ability to donate to political causes either. I don’t think private companies are people, and I don’t believe that they should be treated as such, but above all I want it to be consistent.
They don’t have an individual’s freedoms, but then neither should they have a citizen’s obligations either.
In a way, I think we agree on a lot of points, but maybe from different sides.
For example, I agree that private companies shouldn’t be paying for (or be in charge of) individuals’ health care. I believe that’s the role of the government, just as it is done in the vast majority of developed countries around the world. We pay comparable taxes as most of them, but the funds are getting diverted away from infrastructure and social programs to (in my opinion) wasteful spending and interests outside of its citizens.
The reason that I don’t agree on an “every man for himself” stance in terms of health insurance is because insurance costs are astronomical in this country, partly due to unnecessary inflation of costs and partly to cover their asses in our litigation-happy country. When ACA came into being, K and I looked into private insurance for ourselves — being self-employed and on our own, as you preferred in your view — and the cheapest plans we could find would’ve cost twice of our monthly rent, every month. We have no preexisting conditions, are non-smokers, and live very low-risk lifestyles. Our state refused federal assistance to expand Medicare criteria, so we can’t even get that. That’s why I feel like I’m speaking from a very educated opinion that the free-for-all concept does not work in the health insurance reality we’re currently living in.
So, yes, I don’t think corporations should be treated like people, but they’ve done everything they can to assert that right, so why not expect them to inherit a little “personal” responsibility for it?
I concur on the “we agree but for different reasons” POV; I tend to take somewhat unusual stances on a variety of issues. (well they’re logical to me, at least)
Full disclosure- I tend to lean towards the idea of small or limited government. I believe that capitalism and the free market should take things as far as they possibly can, and only when that breaks down, THEN should the government intervene.
However, I don’t claim it’s because of philosophical reasons; I like to think that my view is objective (stop me if I start sounding overly pretentious) because in my experience, government seems to not do things as well as the private sector. And in some cases, they screw it up royally. It doesn’t take a lot of work to go on Wikipedia to find a lot of government projects or programs that went overbudget, out of schedule, weren’t as effective as they were supposed to be, or just backfired entirely.
The ACA, for example and IMO, is a mess. It’s 2000+ pages, to which they’ve added another 1000+ (not one of which has been approved by congress), it’s been the subject of two major Supreme Court challenges and numerous smaller ones, and it’s approval rating started out mediocre at best and has been slumping ever since. There are parts of it I like, and there are other ways that I certainly would have approved of the government working to improve health care, but what actually got done seems have been the worst of all possible worlds. It’s pretty much the epitome of the “good idea, poor execution” aspect of government intervention that I despise.
For example, saying “a full time employee is 35+ hours per week, and you must provide them health insurance, but for part time employees you don’t” just encourages companies to cut hours below that threshold. Instead, what about saying “a full time employee is 40 hours per week, and you must offer the same health plan to part time employees, paying a percentage of the premium equal to their percentage of full-time hours”. In other words, an employee who works 20 hours per week gets the same health plan, and the company covers 50% of the cost. That way it’s NOT cheaper to hire 2 part time people vs. 1 full time.
If I had my way, I would have kept letting the free-market handle health insurance and health care for the majority of people, and simply work on improving Medicare for serving the lowest level of the population that can’t obtain health insurance another way. Probably by determining eligibility via income, the same way the government subsidizes low-income housing or EBT cards for food.
I have my own experiences with health insurance, too. I hope your premium was so high because you live in a relatively low-rent area.
Even though I’ve worked AT the same company for 3+ years now, I technically work through an employment agency as a temp, and so I get paid by the hour, with no benefits. No vacation, no paid sick leave, and no health insurance unless I pay extra for it our of pocket.
I make a pretty good wage, I think, but because of the area I live in, my first 2 whole paychecks every month (I get paid weekly) go straight to rent. The third paycheck goes to other essentials such as electric, food, cable, dry cleaning, etc. My 4th and final paycheck every month covers 100% of my savings, my investment for the future, and my discretionary spending (entertainment, etc.). If I bought the cheapest available health plan (the bronze plan) through the ACA, the premium would eat up HALF of that 4th paycheck, my after-tax income, every single month. It would be about as much as pay for FOOD every month, but I eat every day, whereas I haven’t been in a hospital since the 4th grade.
Then I looked at my healthcare expenses. I have a once-per-year visit to the doctor for a full checkup. Physical, blood-work, cholesterol, EKG, the works. It costs me, out of pockets, roughly the same as 1 months’ premium. I visit the dentist twice a year for checkup and tooth-cleanings. Together, both visits are about the same as another month’s premium. And if I’m not careful, on average once per year I’ll have an allergic reaction which requires me to go to a 24 walk-in health clinic, and spend 5 minutes telling the doctor what’s wrong with me, the medicine I need, the dosage I need, and showing him the empty bottles from last time so he can write me a prescription. For this privilege, they charge me about another entire month’s premium.
Now, you are probably thinking- why don’t I just buy health insurance then? Because, the cheapest plan under the ACA has a several-thousand dollar deductible before it kicks in. I would pay 12 months of premiums, and then STILL pay 100% of my healthcare costs out of pocket. Even with the tax-penalty added in, I save thousands of dollars every year by NOT getting insurance. Literally, thousands.
Now, this does NOT mean I want the government to step in and make the plan cheaper. I already expressed my doubt that they can do things well. I want to be able to go to the private market and say “I need a plan with a high deductible and LOW premium, because I’m in good health and don’t need a lot of help. If I break my arm skiing, I can cover that. But if I get hit by a car while rollerblading and end up paralyzed from the waste down for the rest of my life, THAT’S where I need help.” And under the current laws, I can’t get that.
P.S. Sorry for the wall of text. I’m a mouthy bastard when I’ve been drinking.
It’s easy to find outliers on Wikipedia. Now lets look at some privatization disasters:
Private prisons. Seriously. We’re talking about an industry that creates an incentive to jail people, therefore lobbying for more and more draconian laws. Usually using “terrorism” or “drugs” as their trumpet. Even when the private company is simply providing services it can turn out badly. Aramark was supposed to save Michigan thousands of dollars a year in feeding their inmates. Now they have maggot infested food, workers smuggling contraband, inmate riots, and clandestine sexy-times.
Private military. Blackwater. Nuff Said.
Private hospitals. The catholic church is rapidly taking over hospitals. Those hospitals are prevented from offering or performing abortion in almost every circumstance. Women have died at these hospitals.
Charity vs. Government Welfare. The overhead of some of the best charities is around 90%. That means that, for every dollar you give, 10c goes to the people the charity is supposed to help. Welfare programs, on the other hand, have anywhere from 4% to 17% overhead (higher due to recent “drug testing” etc. requirements placed by Republicans on the programs). That means that, on average, a dollar of welfare spending gets 90c to the people who need it.
That’s assuming that the charity isn’t a “charitable trust”, which is quite literally just a tax dodge.
Privatization of public services removes the ability of the people (who should in theory “own” those services, as they are necessary part of society) to control how those services are used. At least we can try to vote to change how our government spends money. You replace a (more or less) accountable elected government official with an unaccountable executive.
What America really needs to stop the health care crisis is socialism like it’s done in Western Europe. Half the military budget could be devoted to health care instead. Of course that is never going to happen because socialism is *EVIL*.
Businesses pay for health insurance because back during WWII, massive labor shortages led to the passing of wage caps. To get around these wage caps, employers started offering benefits like insurance to attract employees. It’s a holdover from a less progressive (and much more white-washed) time in the United State’s history, and it needs to end. We need single-payer.
Corporations should pay taxes. They should pay taxes because the corporations are far more reliant on all the services taxes pay for than any individual payer.
The individual relies on infrastructure for themself. The corporation relies on infrastructure for it’s entire existence.
The individual relies on public schools for their own education. The corporation relies on education spending to provide it a skilled labor force.
The individual relies on police, fire, and paramedics for their own safety and health. The corporation needs those to protect its entire workforce.
The burden on public facilities posed by a corporation is far greater than any individual. Ergo the burden to pay for it should be greater on the corporation than the individual.
I don’t understand why we “need” a single-payer system for health care any more than we need it for anything else that is considered a necessity, or why it can’t be handled in a similar manner- free-market for most people, with limited government regulation, and government subsidy to pay for those who can’t get it another way.
And I consider myself a progressive as well, but a libertarian progressive as opposed to a federalist-progressive. I’ve already admitted that I don’t have a lot of faith in the government to do things well. Take the current ACA- I already outlined a lot of the problems that I’ve had with it; would you say it’s a well-done piece of legislation? Or if you look at a single-payer system like Canada, then reviews seem to be a mixed bag, at best.
pro: http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
con: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/13/if-universal-health-care-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/
undetermined: http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html
I assumed my statement that we need single-payer would have been an indication that, no, I don’t think it’s a well-done piece of legislation. I think it’s a shit piece of legislation rammed through by a center-right president compromising with a radical-right congress.
And I assume from your previous statements that you don’t feel that people should be turned away from necessary care that they cannot afford.
Ultimately, single-payer is cheaper in the long run. The centralized payment system allows the payee to keep costs down. That means obscenely priced medications (like asthma medications) are cheaper. That means prevention is cheaper. And prevention is already cheaper than emergency rooms.
Most expensive emergency room visits are for chronic care problems that become acute. A stay for an asthma attack can run up to $10,000. A stay for psychiatric treatment can be $15,000 plus (this is from personal experience). Preventative care is much, much cheaper. And the fact is, whenever someone can’t pay for it, you end up paying for it.
The backlog of unpaid emergency room visits is expensive. Hospitals make up the unpaid bills by increasing costs, leading to insurance companies increasing their costs and deductibles. This increases the cost of your monthly and out of pocket expenses. And that’s when it’s not outright closing hospitals. Don’t get sick or injured in rural Georgia, for example, unless you’re happy with third-world quality of care (this is not an exaggeration).
Oh, that’s right. You’re healthy? You don’t get sick? Isn’t that like arguing that you shouldn’t have to pay social security because you’re not old?
Providing care is better for the health of the nation. It should be paid for by taxes. And those taxes should be progressive, like most taxes, so that the people who profit the most from a healthy population also pay the greatest share.
Wow, I consider the president to be a left-win ideologue. Clearly we have different views when it comes to politics. O_o
First, cost is only one factor to consider. the other two major ones being timeliness of care and quality of care.
Second, I believe that many of the issues you raise could be addressed by keeping the multi-payer, capitalistic system and just having a minimum of well-crafted regulation. That’s what competition usually does, and the U.S. healthcare system wasn’t exactly an archetype of free-market enterprise even before the ACA.
I agree that we need to find ways to bring prices, but again, the ability to easily move to a different provider would help with a lot of that. And there are multiple reasons why medical costs in the U.S. are high- such as the long time and large investment needed to develop new medicines, the high cost of litigation, excessive or unnecessary testing and prescribing, etc. It’s a multi-faceted problem that we need to address from many different angles.
My biggest concern with a single-payer system is that if you don’t like, there’s no way out, and as I’ve said, I don’t have confidence in the government to administrate it well. A single-payer system is effectively a monopoly, and those are notoriously bad at delivering quality service at good prices. And it’s not just from the point of view of the person getting the care- you want to work as a doctor or nurse? You get paid the government rate. You want to develop and sell new medicines? You pay what the government offers you.
AFAIK, the closest we’ve come to a single-payer system in the U.S. is the Veterans Administration, the one currently in the middle of a huge scandal over that fact that it wasn’t providing the care that it was supposed to, and that it was covering it up.
Also, what I’ve read about Canada (I think it’s mentioned in one of those links I posted up above) is that while they country isn’t experiencing an overall doctor-shortage, there is a LOCALIZED shortage in the rural areas, because, just like in the U.S., the doctors like to live where the people are.
I’d rather not get into the tax-issue, since we’re already wandering pretty far off-topic, except to say that while I’m certain I disagree with you over what direction to take it in, I do believe that the tax-code needs a massive overhaul.
We’ve been trying trickle down economics for forty years now, and the situation is getting steadily worse. Want more proof? Look at Brownbeck’s disaster in Kansas. Brownbeck cut top-tier taxes, and now Kansas is literally bottom state recovery-wise.
Taxes on the top 1% are the lowest they’ve been since WWII. If this is so good for the economy, why does the working class have to work harder, for longer hours, just to break even with the poverty line?
You want a good example of a country with minimal government involvement and unfettered corporations?
Somalia.
And I don’t know how you would consider Obama to be “left-wing”. In some aspects, he’s further right than Saint Ronald (Reagan).
Look at how he’s handled Wall Street.
Look at how he’s using drones.
Look at how hard he’s fighting information requests.
Look at how he’s handling the NSA.
This is how far the radical right has shifted the Overton Window, that anyone would seriously consider Obama to be “left-wing”.
“If this is so good for the economy, why does the working class have to work harder, for longer hours, just to break even with the poverty line?”
I answered this a bit elsewhere, but basically we keep moving the goalposts. I saw an infographic a while back that said that, in the 1950’s, on average it took 1 week of work per month to afford and average size house, and that today it took 2 weeks or of work per month.
So I decided to go and look up the average size of houses in the united states, and found that it’s about double today what it was in the 1950’s.
So you can afford the same sort of lifestyle they did 70 years ago by working the same amount of time, the difference is that that lifestyle is now in the bottom instead of the middle.
“Look at how he’s handled Wall Street.
Look at how he’s using drones.
Look at how hard he’s fighting information requests.
Look at how he’s handling the NSA.”
All the more reason to distrust government, IMO then. I’ve said I favor small government; I also favor an open government that doesn’t hide things from the people.
I broke my reply up into two pieces to try and stay focused on different subjects.
What burden does a corporation place upon “public facilities” that is greater than the sum of that placed by the people that make it up, and how does it benefit more than the individuals?
Don’t I benefit from the education that allows me to get a higher paying job? If there was no public education system would it be impossible for a corporation to train people to have the skills it required?
If the police and fire departments are already protecting me as an individual, how does it cost them MORE to protect me as a part of the corporation?
A corporation isn’t a thing; you can’t hold it in your hand or put it in jail if you don’t like it. A corporation is an idea- it’s a bunch of PEOPLE saying “we’re going to go into business together”.
And the reason it’s very difficult to tax a corporation is that the business has an almost infinite capacity to raise prices in response and pass those taxes onto the consumer of it’s services. It’s much easier for a corporation to do this than it is for an individual to pass an increase in income tax on to their employer.
All that I see corporate taxes doing is pulling money out of the revenue stream and causing a drag on the economy. If you DON’T tax a corporation, where do you think that money ends up? It either gets paid out to employees as salary, in which case it gets taxed as income. Or it gets paid out to investors as dividends, in which case it gets taxed as income. Or it gets reinvested back into the company to grow the it’s size, leading (eventually) back around to the first two options. Either way, the longer it flows through the economy before the government takes it’s cut the better.
My view on taxes is that the government should be looking to get by on a little as possible, not piling up bills on the electorate as high as they can possibly bear.
It’s not so much about “burden” as “benefit”. The infrastructure that allows you to become a skilled worker also allows corporations to profit off your work. Corporations receive greater benefit from the existing infrastructure. Ergo their responsibility to maintain that infrastructure should be greater.
And yet a corporation has the “right” to “free speech” (unlimited campaign spending) and “religious freedom” (the ability to dictate how employee compensation is used by the employee).
No. This is simply wrong.
First, it’s wrong because the corporations cannot charge more than their consumer base will pay.
Second, it’s wrong because taxes, when done right, end up reinvesting in the working class, therefore increasing the working class’ buying power and enabling them to pay that higher price.
Third, it’s wrong because highly progressive taxes tend to encourage the top 1% to simply deal with lower paychecks. They can still buy anything they can dream of. But they sock away less cash in offshore bank accounts where the money simply sits and does nothing for the very country that enabled them to earn it. By aggressively taxing high earnings, but not money used for payroll or RnD, you encourage hiring and research. Plus government money goes into reasearch (like NASA, which provides 10+ dollars of economic gain for each tax dollar spent) or welfare (which improves the economy because it is literally money that MUST be spent).
Fourth, evidence simply doesn’t bear this out. For example, that same argument is used against minimum wage. But all actual evidence shows that increases in minimum wage translate into, maybe, 10c on the dollar, if not less. Wal-mart could afford to pay it’s employees enough to no longer need welfare, and it would only increase prices by a few cents on the dollar.
Something to keep in mind is that higher prices are not necessarily the worst thing in the economy. If you spend a dollar at walmart, most of that dollar winds up in offshore accounts of the Walton family. If you spend that dollar at a mom-and-pop grocery, most of that money stays in the local economy
As I hinted out before, most of that money doesn’t really go through the economy any more. People that rich don’t need more money to support their lifestyle, so in the end that money winds up in offshore accounts for very rich people to play penis-measuring contests with.
The bills shouldn’t be on the electorate, but on the corporations who are profiting off the government.
I still don’t get how a “corporation” is benefitting. A corporation doesn’t live in a mansion or sail a yacht. A corporation is composed of PEOPLE who are benefitting, in which case I don’t see any reason to not let the corporation distribute the money and then tax it as personal income instead.
I already said I disagree that a corporation has the freedom of speech, for the same reasons just mentioned. A corporation doesn’t say anything; people do that. And I don’t quite understand your line about “the ability to dictate how employee compensation is used by the employee”. AFAIK, Hobby-Lobby employees are still free to buy and use any form of birth control or contraception they want. The ruling said that forcing Hobby-Lobby to pay for it would, because of their particular beliefs, be an unreasonable burden, AND that if the government wanted the Hobby-Lobby employees to have birth control they didn’t pay for directly, there where other ways to accomplish it.
(sorry, I don’t know how to do quotes)
“First, it’s wrong because the corporations cannot charge more than their consumer base will pay.”
Right, if you raise taxes to high, you can drive a company to bankruptcy. That doesn’t seem like a good option, though.
“Second, it’s wrong because taxes, when done right, end up reinvesting in the working class, therefore increasing the working class’ buying power and enabling them to pay that higher price.”
I’ve expressed multiple times my lack of faith in the government. How is your argument any better than me saying “capitalism, when done right, improves the quality of life for all people involved. For evidence, see the ascendancy of the U.S. and China, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.” This isn’t “trickle-down economics”, it’s “a rising tide lifts all ships”.
“Third, it’s wrong because highly progressive taxes tend to encourage the top 1% to simply deal with lower paychecks.”
Anyone who’s not currently living under a bridge and scrounging in the garbage for their next meal can “deal with a lower paycheck”. My income is almost exactly the national average (~$52,000 per year). Nearly 25% of my weekly paycheck is taken out before I ever get my hands on it. Somewhat coincidentally, what they take out of my paycheck every week is roughly the same amount of 1 month’s worth of premiums for the cheapest (Bronze) plan offered via the ACA. If I wanted to spend the difference of 2 paychecks, I could upgrade to the silver plan.
If you’re only logic when it comes to taxes is “they aren’t broke yet, therefor they can afford more”, then why not just cap income? I mean, who really needs more than 60 or 70 thousand dollars a year, am I right? (that was sarcasm)
“As I hinted out before, most of that money doesn’t really go through the economy any more.”
The 17 trillion (with a “T”) U.S. economy would seem to disagree with you there, chief.
“so in the end that money winds up in offshore accounts for very rich people to play penis-measuring contests with.”
Unless of course you’re the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, whose pledged the majority of his wealth to charitable causes. Or the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, who’s joined him. Or the other people they’ve convinced to join them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge
“The bills shouldn’t be on the electorate, but on the corporations who are profiting off the government.”
Newsflash- the electorate includes the 1%. And I’m still confused as to how you tax a corporation that is nothing more than a group of people instead of taxing those people directly.
coughblockquotecoughcough
Because a lot of those earnings don’t get reported as “income”.
Hobby Lobby was never “paying” for it in the first place. It was compensation offered to employees.
It’s also a lie that’s been repeated ad nauseum since Nixon, while the US continues to slip from it’s industrial end educational peak of the post WWII years.
Funny, because last I checked, 50k is a bit more “average”. About 75% more.
And standard deviation is a thing, cupcake (that’s sarcasm too, btw).
With so much money, why are so many people below the poverty line, then?
You know, Hillary Clinton gives all her speaking fees to “charity”. It’s called the Clinton Foundation. And it’s primary purpose is the charitable act of keeping Chelsea in silver spoons.
You reinstate the top-end 80-90% income tax rates. You tax the hell out of inheritances (that money wasn’t “earned”). Same with capital gains (more “unearned) money.
And for pity’s sake, you stop slapping the hands of the bankers responsible for the predatory lending practices that lead to the recession and actually start putting some in jail.
“Because a lot of those earnings don’t get reported as “income”.”
Something a vastly simplified tax system would help alleviate.
“Hobby Lobby was never “paying” for it in the first place. It was compensation offered to employees.”
What was? Health Insurance? And who’s paying the premiums on that?
“It’s also a lie that’s been repeated ad nauseum since Nixon, while the US continues to slip from it’s industrial end educational peak of the post WWII years.”
At the end of WWII the rest of the world had pretty much been bombed into rubble; seems like a kind of low standard to start from.
I fully support the need to improve our education system. But I would inject a healthy dose of capitialism into it, vis-à-vis something like Charter Schools. That way people get to send their kids wherever they want, and if a school does a bad job, no one is FORCED to go there, and it gets shut down.
And yes, we do less manufacturing than we used to, because as the population increased it’s wealth and education those jobs migrated over seas to countries that are at the point the U.S. was 60-70 years ago. Also, the cost of transportation has come way down.
“Funny, because last I checked, 50k is a bit more “average”. About 75% more.”
Sorry, I was mistaken. $51,000 is the median, not the average, and I’m more at about the 60% bracket than the 50%. Still hardly making me a member of the idle rich.
“With so much money, why are so many people below the poverty line, then?”
Because as our society gets richer the cost of living increases and we keep re-defining the poverty line upward. That’s how the government justifies supplying cell phones to people- because we’re so well off that not having one is fundamentally detrimental. The poorest people in the United States are head and shoulders above large chunks of the population in other parts of the world.
I think you see the government as a kind of Robin Hood figure, taking from the wicked rich and giving to the poor. I have a different view: who gets rich when the government gets involved? The government does. That’s why government employees have job security, benefits packages, pensions, and frequently pay-levels that the private sector never even approaches.
“You know, Hillary Clinton gives all her speaking fees to “charity”. It’s called the Clinton Foundation. And it’s primary purpose is the charitable act of keeping Chelsea in silver spoons.”
If the wealthy are going to keep dodging taxes, then simply adding more of them only penalizes the people who aren’t rich enough to dodge. I would say this is an argument for a vastly simplified tax system and a stricter definition of what constitutes charitable giving.
“You tax the hell out of inheritances (that money wasn’t “earned”).”
It was earned by someone, and it was already taxed when it was income. Why are we taxing it twice? All that seems to do is encourage people to never save anything, and instead just spend it all before they go.
“Same with capital gains (more “unearned) money.”
The way I understand capital gains taxes working is that if the value of a stock goes up, I need to pay taxes as if that money was earned income. If it goes back down, however, then I’m shit out of luck. I fully support taxing gains on stock as income, but only after it’s been sold and the money is in your pocket.
“You reinstate the top-end 80-90% income tax rates.”
So basically yes, you support a cap on income. You want people to do well, but not TO well.
“And for pity’s sake, you stop slapping the hands of the bankers responsible for the predatory lending practices that lead to the recession and actually start putting some in jail.”
One good way to encourage people to have more ethical lending standards is to (1) stop bailing out the banks when they fuck up, and (2) to stop having the government buy all those horrible loans off their hands via organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a true capitalist, I despise crony capitalism and would be glad to see it drug out behind the woodshed and have it’s kneecaps shot out.
The problem is that for to long owning a home has been an indelible part of the so-called American Dream, and politicians have been measuring success by how many people they can claim bought houses (took out mortgages) regardless of whether or not they had the financially resources and stability to pay for them.
Yeah, I’m about done muddling through your inanity until you learn to blockquote.
It seemed to take up a lot of space, and since my posts where to long already, I simply opted not too.
Also, going to add:
The Waltons pull in over 7 billion (with a B) dollars net profit each year. Wal-Mart employees account for almost one billion dollars of yearly government welfare spending.
Food for thought.
Assuming the 7 billion dollar figure is their post-tax income, then at the highest personal income tax rate of ~40%, the Waltons paid over 4 and a half billion dollars in taxes. Several times what was spent on their employees. But maybe they used some accounting tricks and only paid a marginal tax rate of 20%. Then it would still be more than twice the amount, easily enough to cover costs, assuming the government can spend less than 50 cents out of every dollar on administration.
Also, I shop at Walmart instead of a Mom-and-Pop store because what I spend $1 on at Walmart costs me $2 at the smaller chain. Cheaper prices benefit the populace in nearly the exact same was as does a higher income.
Those cheaper prices come at the cost of destroyed industries and outsourced labor. More of the two dollars you spent at the mom and pop shop would come back to you. Most of that dollar at Walmart ends up functionally leaving the economy.
Walmart is a “closely held” corporation. It is owned by the Waltons.
The Waltons enjoy government enforcement of their property, allowing them to purchase and maintain outlets nationwide.
The Waltons enjoy a public highway system that allows customers to come to their stores to shop. It allows employees to come to their stores to work. It allows trucks to shuttle goods from warehouses and factories and farms to their stores so that they have goods to sell.
The Waltons enjoy regulated media networks, which simplifies broadcasting, making it easier for them to advertise their services across a wide variety of media.
The Waltons enjoy municipal fire fighting services, helping to prevent and reduce property damage.
The Waltons enjoy municipal police services, protecting their employees, their merchandise, and helping their customers feel safe enough to come shop.
The Waltons enjoy a public school system that ensures that their employees and customers will be literate and capable of purchasing higher-end consumer goods.
The Waltons enjoy a judicial system that enforces contracts and deals with criminal acts against them.
In short, the Walton’s revenue exists solely due to the protections and services paid for via taxes to the government.
First, how, exactly, do you suggest privatizing any of those services in a way that doesn’t fundamentally screw over the working class?
Second, what does Walmart give us in exchange for providing the infrastructure necessary for their very existence?
They move jobs (and therefore money) overseas. They use every tax dodge then can find. They pay the bulk of their employees poverty wages and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. They shuffle money off into overseas accounts where it does fuck-all for the American economy.
Yes. I think they should pay more.
“Those cheaper prices come at the cost of destroyed industries and outsourced labor.”
Destroyed and moved are two different thing. My grandfather used to repair typewriters. That’s a business that doesn’t exist anymore. Ditto for horsedrawn carriages. It’s estimated that the embrace of Capitalism has lifted approx. 100 million people in China out of poverty; what makes it less legitimate for a dollar to go over there than to stay here?
“First, how, exactly, do you suggest privatizing any of those services in a way that doesn’t fundamentally screw over the working class?”
It would be very difficult…which is why I’ve never advocated that. Criminal Justice, Transportation, National Defense, and Education are all areas where I support the government getting I involved to some degree, depending on how and when the free market stops being able to provide adequate service.
Also, ever hear of a toll-road? Around where I live, an 18-wheel tractor trailer (say, one transporting Walmart Brand furniture, for example) pays a lot more to cross a bridge than a car does.
“Second, what does Walmart give us in exchange for providing the infrastructure necessary for their very existence?”
Every variety of consumer good at a cheaper price than we could get it elsewhere.
“They use every tax dodge then can find. …. They shuffle money off into overseas accounts where it does fuck-all for the American economy.”
If our tax-code wasn’t such a byzantine mess then it would be a lot harder to find those loopholes in the first place. For years politicians have been slipping more and more little things into rules to try and encourage their own moral code, or as a favor to friends, or even to protect their own fortunes. If they where less-involved then we wouldn’t have these problems. I don’t advocate for no government, but for limited government.
It’s completely true, it’s specific to women’s health care. So much for freedom from sexism because it’s illegal. Lemme just open this hole, and tie into a nice loop for ya… yeah, there ya go.
I don’t think employers should have the right not to cover contraceptives through insurance for religious reasons. I think employers should have the right not to cover anything for any reason.
Employers should have the right to offer whatever they want and withhold whatever they want. Just as you mentioned, we have the right to boycott those employers’ companies, as well as the right not to work for them.
True freedom allows people to make stupid decisions, discriminate, and treat other unfairly as long as they’re not using coercion, as long as the people they’re treating unfairly deal with them voluntarily. It’s the responsibility of others to use their freedom to not deal with people who make those bad decisions and to encourage other like-minded individuals to do the same (as you are doing now).
I just hate the government forcing anyone to make the right choice, that’s fascism, not freedom. People have to have the choice to voluntarily act with benevolence as well as the choice not to.
Then again, maybe I’m idealistic and unrealistic.
If companies are able to discriminate in hiring practices, pick and choose what health benefits to offer, or- continuing this line of thought- just pay wages as low as they wish with no regard for minimum wage, it would destabilize our whole economy.
In a perfect world, the Public would boycott companies with unfair practices, and people would choose not to work for them. They would go under while fair companies would still be supported.
But the world isn’t perfect. For example: I’m not a fan of Walmart as a company, they do some shifty things. However, if I want to drive anything less than 45 minutes to get groceries I really have no choice. Sure, I could stand on my ideals and drive 30 minutes out of my way… but is that practical?
As for hiring, and not working for companies you don’t agree with, most of us do not have that freedom. As someone who has been medicated for anxiety and depression for my entire adult life, my employment choices have been based almost entirely on whether or not I will receive benefits that cover my medication.
And, if you want to go down THAT road- because of my medication, I’m also unable to use hormonal birth control (it counteracts my anti-depressants). Which means I’m left with condoms being my only contraceptive option unless I want to have some sort of itch-fest trying to use spermicide. Well, there are situations when they’ll break or whatever.
So if a condom breaks (and since I can’t use hormonal birth control I have no back up in place) if I can’t get a morning after pill… I’m just screwed? Should I just cross my fingers and hope that the sperm that got through don’t swim very well? Oh- also, were I to get pregnant I would have to go off all of my medications and would be not only a suicide risk, but a homicide risk as well.
I’d love to live in a perfect world. But we don’t. Someone needs to enforce limits on companies and make sure that those of us that don’t have the money or health freedom to choose where we work or shop will still be given some sort of consideration.
Like I said, I might be too idealistic, but I value attempting to work for a perfect world whenever possible, on both a personal and societal level, at the cost of potential dangers along the way.
I have to respectfully disagree, removal of minimum wage would probably lead to a more stable economy in the long run (after an initial period of acclimatization) and create more jobs (specifically jobs that don’t exist any more because they’re not worth paying someone minimum wage to do). The “race to the bottom” of employers paying less and less is a fallacy, it’s been shown that wages have a tendency to rise in economies with less government regulation. Government regulation seems to lie at the heart of all economic problems. The last time my country’s economy was stable was when an economist was Prime Minister who deregulated and made massive cuts to government programs, allow the economy to fill gaps without social engineering.
One of the reasons why individuals don’t boycott or fight against companies they disagree with is because we have become dependent on “big brother” to do it for us. If there was less government regulation people would have more incentive to regulate themselves and each other.
Regulation can also be blamed for the fact that big businesses monopolize the market making it more difficult to boycott. Large, already established businesses already have the resources and lawyers to navigate the byzantine regulations, where as small or start-up companies suffer more from them. This is on top of the disgusting Cronyism of large, established companies to lobby (or straight-up bribe) politicians to enact regulation that favours them and hurts competition. Even ignoring that, though in your personal experience you may have no alternative, alternatives do exist for others, and despite the blocks put in the way by the government, technology is making it easier. Even groceries can be ordered online and delivered in many cases for comparable costs. Or one could view it this way, the cost of boycotting cheaper and convenient companies would be offset by the taxes one isn’t paying to have the government do the regulating for them.
There’s also an argument that if one truly believes in something, then they should suffer for it themselves, (not demand others suffer for them); though honestly my heart isn’t in that argument as I value practicality as well, but it is worth mentioning for anyone who does hold strong enough beliefs.
I have also suffered from anxiety and depression since I was an adolescent, I empathize with your desire to find an employer that offers coverage. I look for medical coverage as well when choosing an employer (despite my country having healthcare, it doesn’t cover the expensive anti-depressants I require). Medical insurance of this type isn’t required of companies to provide to their employers. The fact that my employer voluntarily provides it was one of the many factors that led me to choose them, along with other voluntary policies that lead to them being more successful and having more long-term employees than their competitors. Individual choice works in that example (though of course my personal experience is a poor example of how things work in general so that example my be worthless). Another option I have is to look into private medical insurance through a third party.
An interesting point is that my reliance on my company’s medical insurance (or any medical insurance) is actually bad for the economy and medical treatment in general. It would be best for me to stop being lazy and stupid and start a savings account for medical costs. My medication costs so much because of insurance. If medical insurance only covered the most expensive treatments instead of everything, then medicine would be over-all cheaper. The same could be said for my country’s medicare. My medication is cheaper if I take the generic (which is exactly the same in all ways except in brand name and cost), but with my insurance it cost the same either way. There is no incentive for me to shop around for the cheapest medicine. This means there are no market forces at work reducing the cost of medicine and treatment. This is a self-sustaining loop of people depending on their employers, insurance companies, and their country to provide medical treatment for them instead of taking care of themselves and forcing medicine to work like any other business; lowering their costs and improving their products. Individuals are no longer their customers, medicine now answers to big business and the government.
In the end, I have to side with personal responsibility. If something bad happens, then individuals should either help themselves, or stand by their convictions and voluntarily helps others at their own expense; rather than having the government use force and social engineering to decide who gets help and who suffers.
Again, this might be my own futile idealism, I am open to the possibility that I might be very wrong, but this what makes sense with me, and I hope my sharing isn’t a problem.
As a registered Conservative and past Committeeman of the local Republican Party, I would just like to say that you guys rock, and I completely disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The day we let employers impose their religious beliefs on employees is a dark day indeed. I am also a woman who used birth control until I was sterilized.
Seeing my points of views in a funny comic form is just AWESOME!!! Thank you =)
hi! i discovered chaoslife this week and fell in love instantly. the art, the humour and how you handle more serious issues (like in the comic above) – everything about it is great. also, you two are very cute but… not as cute as your cats! if i didn’t already have two of my own, i’d come and steal them /giggles/ so please tell them they have a new fan (even if they won’t care…). anyway, keep up the good work and all the best to you! 🙂
I’m a Christian…buuuut I’m with the purple sock on this one.
This skips out the fun fact that Hobby Lobby still buys most of their products from countries with forced abortions, and invests their portfolios mainly in companies that create abortifacient. So abortion is A-OKAY by them, unless they can save money by pretending it’s not.
Sorry, this went a bit long.
Frankly, I feel that the last panel may be getting overlooked in the discussions here in the comments. While it is true that there are people who both agree and disagree with SCOTUS, most of the (initial) fallout will be people verbally (or textually, if that’s correct word) fighting which tends to escalate into swearing, abuse (verbal), shouting, and other symptoms of poor debating skills. However, I’m wondering how many people (particularly Americans) will allow this to affect other actions. How many who are opposed will continue to shop at these stores? How many who agree will provide them no extra business? Such is a means to make opinions over this issue (and others like it) more tangible.
And now for something a little less neutral. Up until this point, I’ve tried to keep my monologue from revealing my personal stance on the ruling. I stand opposed to it.
If the religion of the company is determined by the owners, what happens when a company is passed from religiously tolerant moderates to less tolerant fundamentalists? And if this is allowed to branch into other company decisions based upon religious belief, there are openings toward discriminatory practices. Could they refuse to hire an atheist? Could they fire an employee for having an abortion? Could they refuse holiday time for holidays of other religions (eg. Christian blocking Hanukkah or the other way around). Could they implement practices which (further) favor men since several religions establish men as dominant (the “breadwinner”)? These may seem like exaggerations (and maybe they are a little), but there are people who would push for this sort of stuff. And if the religion of the company can change with ownership, the policy changes could create so much headache. I’m talking about policy changes potentially of a national or even multinational scale. And how will this fit into world trade? There are companies based in the United States which have holdings in other countries. Is it fair to allow companies to impose religiously based policies upon employees in other countries which have not made this ruling (mostly because it hasn’t come up before)?
I’m writing this as a white male who was originally raised catholic and is currently living in the states (though I feel no especial allegiance). I mention this because statistically, I would be considered at a higher probability of agreeing with SCOTUS, yet I do not.
Finally, this is my first time commenting, but I’ve read this comic for a while. Among the things I find admirable is the willingness to approach issues like this. A person willing to calmly face such charged issues in a (semi)public manner is a rare and precious commodity. You are guaranteed to make some people angry, but you back your opinion and provide reasoning for it. I say that you stand as a fine spokesperson and I believe you’d make an excellent debater. But, best of all is the sheer contrast. Strips of a political/satirical nature in the archives are easily dominated by strips of a lighthearted nature. A person dedicated to amusement and informing/enlightening is something I’ve encountered only a handful of times. Thank you.
How long until a Morman wants to be allowed to legally deny employment to people who are black or native american? Any takers? My money is on two months.
First off, I’m a Christain. Doesn’t matter too much in this instance though. It bothers me how people try to stop women from receiving contraceptives. I personally am against abortion, but that’s my opinion, not one to force on everyone. The thing is, if you want to lower abortion rates, shouldn’t you make contraception more readily available? Birth control, condoms, and even the day after pill PREVENT pregnancy, not stop it. It’s sad how many uneducated people there are.