Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
A marginally successful business keeping 4 people in poverty so that 1 owner can make money is not a good thing. The collateral damage is us the tax payers have to subsidize their incomes through social assistance so that the owner can make money. Workers don't get to keep a job if they aren't good at it, why should small business owners get to keep a business they aren't running well enough to pay people a living wage to work at? If you even consider $15/hour a living wage in Alberta.
|
So you increase the social assistance costs by 25% by removing the business. Now instead of 4 people needing "social assistance", you have 5. In fact, now you have 5 people making ZERO dollars and needing even MORE social assistance. As well, in the status quo scenario, this small business owner was paying taxes. Where is that revenue shortfall going to come from? Let me guess, the "big corporations" can pay even more right? That will just cause more layoffs and LESS taxes being paid. Where exactly is the money going to come from to pay for your socialist paradise?