Redistribution of Wealth Experiment

[stanmaxkolbe]

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a
sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I
laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama
08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his
political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and
explained to him that I was exploring the Obama
redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in
disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute
his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless
guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to
thank the server inside as I 've decided he could use
the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution
experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the
money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that
I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual
recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to
swallow in concept than in practical application.

[DawnInTexas]

Fabulous!

Well, it IS what he wants, right?

God Bless you.
+Pax, -Dawn in Texas (too)

[Alethiaphile]

Originally Posted by stanmaxkolbe

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a
sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I
laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama
08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his
political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and
explained to him that I was exploring the Obama
redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in
disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute
his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless
guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to
thank the server inside as I 've decided he could use
the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution
experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the
money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that
I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual
recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to
swallow in concept than in practical application.

Not very funny.
The server was probably in need just as was the homeless guy.
You slough right over the fact that there are corporate executives who make 250 times (or more) what I, a lower middle class professional make. Anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with that has no moral sense whatsoever. And that is what is referred to by "spreading the wealth" around.
Terrible, isn't it? Sort of like saying "Let him who has two coats give to him who has none". How socialistic.
Oh wait, that's in the Bible. Uh oh.

[CTA1967]

Originally Posted by Alethiaphile

Not very smart.
The server was probably in need just as was the homeless guy.
You slough right over the fact that there are corporate executives who make 250 times (or more) what I, a lower middle class professional make. Anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with that has no moral sense whatsoever. And that is what is referred to by "spreading the wealth" around.
Terrible, isn't it? Sort of like saying "Let him who has two coats give to him who has none". How socialistic.
Oh wait, that's in the Bible. Uh oh.

But how is it generous if it's mandated by the government? Forced love isn't love.

[dulcissima]

Originally Posted by CTA1967

But how is it generous if it's mandated by the government? Forced love isn't love.

It is interesting the way that so many want the government to enforce protection of some, but not all of those who are vulnerable.

And to those who talk about taking money away from those who really earned it, you have an interesting concept of who really earns it...the overpaid CEO or the underpaid worker. While worker's salaries have remained stagnant, not even keeping up with inflation, CEO salaries have skyrocketed and their astronomical pay raises aren't even tied to performance. http://www.cpbn.org/report-finds-top...merican-worker

For those who are paying attention, many who are living in poverty are working.

And stanmaxkolbe, shame on you! You just stole from that waiter. If you knew that you weren't going to pay him for his service, you shouldn't have let him serve you. You really ought to go back and pay him.

[john1863]

If any of you believe that the "Golden Parachutes" that have been given to many CEOs are appropriate...so be it. However, this is not the USA that my grandparents and parents would even recognize.

Greed is greed....oh , yes, they'll say they earned it...but how?

Have any of them done a single day of real work?

I know a few people with some wealth on this board who have worked hard for their position, and they know I respect that. I also know that they would like to give their wealth to someone.i.e..family.? What if that person...son or daughter, turns out to be an idiot?

The old European families have demonstrated this dichotomy . I truly hope better for all of you.

John

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by dulcissima

It is interesting the way that so many want the government to enforce protection of some, but not all of those who are vulnerable.

And to those who talk about taking money away from those who really earned it, you have an interesting concept of who really earns it...the overpaid CEO or the underpaid worker. While worker's salaries have remained stagnant, not even keeping up with inflation, CEO salaries have skyrocketed and their astronomical pay raises aren't even tied to performance. http://www.cpbn.org/report-finds-top...merican-worker

For those who are paying attention, many who are living in poverty are working.

And stanmaxkolbe, shame on you! You just stole from that waiter. If you knew that you weren't going to pay him for his service, you shouldn't have let him serve you. You really ought to go back and pay him.

Give me a break. There is nothing written, or in books of etiquette, that says someone is entitled to a tip. Is it tacky not to leave one if the service is good, sure. But the waiter is not entitled. We have become a country of folks who think they are entitled to everything. That is not what made this country great.

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by john1863

If any of you believe that the "Golden Parachutes" that have been given to many CEOs are appropriate...so be it. However, this is not the USA that my grandparents and parents would even recognize.

Greed is greed....oh , yes, they'll say they earned it...but how?

Have any of them done a single day of real work? Depends on what you consider real work. The person who is making the company work and grow is working just as hard, and usually putting in many more hours, that those who work with their hands. There would be no jobs for others if the company does not grow and prosper.

I know a few people with some wealth on this board who have worked hard for their position, and they know I respect that. I also know that they would like to give their wealth to someone.i.e..family.? What if that person...son or daughter, turns out to be an idiot? But it is their idiot. And who are we to judge that? The son or daughter is family and why would one not want to leave the profits of their labor to their family. I don't understand that.

The old European families have demonstrated this dichotomy . I truly hope better for all of you.

John

[stinkcat_14]

Originally Posted by mary bobo

Give me a break. There is nothing written, or in books of etiquette, that says someone is entitled to a tip. Is it tacky not to leave one if the service is good, sure.

Of course, this could just be easily solved by having restaurants just add 15% to the bill. If they do this, then it would be a legal obligation and then it would definitely immoral to not leave the tip.

But the waiter is not entitled. We have become a country of folks who think they are entitled to everything. That is not what made this country great.

While I agree that the waiter may not be entitled, it people stopped tipping, few people would become waiters. On the other hand, I don't see anything redeeming in stiffing a waiter because he has a different political opinion than me. The proper response would have been to tell the waiter before you order that you will not tip him, or to leave the establishment all together.

[stinkcat_14]

Originally Posted by john1863

What if that person...son or daughter, turns out to be an idiot?

This does seem to happen with a fair amount of regularity. It probably points to our fallen human nature. I have taught at an Ivy league school and the kids there seemed to fall into one of two categories. Some were very hard working and really making use of the blessings that they had. Others were the laziest, most worthless students I have ever had. If this last group were from the working class, they would have been sent to work at Wal-mart, but it is much easier to be lazy when you have wealthy parents.

[MrS]

Consider this scenario....

All restaurant owners (the high end of those particular businesses, or "food chain" in this case) are told that they will be "billed" an additional 15-20% and that additional cost will be re-distributed to the servers. (gotta spread that wealth)

In this way the rest of us, the consumers, will not have to pay the tax/tip to a server. Gee, we get a tax/tip reduction. No more calculations, no more figuring on the napkins, etc. Wow, free money, huh?

The business owner gets peeved. But he has the natural outlet for this new "expense".

He simply passes it on to the consumer of his product, and prices go up.

The decision maker (government) can say ".... see, I helped the middle class server make 'more' money....... and I took it from big bad business....... and the consumers got a tax/tip break...."

Ain't life grand.

or...

consider this........

Government gets the %$#@ out of the restaurant business. Less or no taxes to the delivery drivers, shippers, suppliers, etc. (accompany that by cutting the pork - how appropriate in this scenario).
The restaurant owner has more income, hires more workers, or expands his business, and can be more competitive by lowering the cost of a good meal.

Joe the Eater visits the newly decorated restaurant, eats the same meal, pays less, and thanks the server with perhaps a larger tip.

NOBAMA.

.

[gmarie21]

Originally Posted by stinkcat_14

Of course, this could just be easily solved by having restaurants just add 15% to the bill. If they do this, then it would be a legal obligation and then it would definitely immoral to not leave the tip.




While I agree that the waiter may not be entitled, it people stopped tipping, few people would become waiters. On the other hand, I don't see anything redeeming in stiffing a waiter because he has a different political opinion than me. The proper response would have been to tell the waiter before you order that you will not tip him, or to leave the establishment all together.

Have you worked in the restaurant business. I'm sure that that waiter will no longer wear political articles on his person when working now knowing that it may affect his income (you would think he'd have the common sense regarding this, but obviously is lacking, then again, you'd think his boss would have the common sense to say "change your shirt").

As for tips, waiters are NOT entitled to squat. If there was a mandatory tip included on a meal, there would still be the right of the customer to fight the tip if the service was not up to par. I know, I have not only worked in restaurants, but have also fought to get an automatic tip removed from a bill due to the terrible service and left the server nothing. I have also withheld tips from servers while on the side tipping the busboys because they did a better job than the server (and frankly, they work harder and get paid squat in comparison to what a waiter makes).

We also do not know the type of restaurant the OP visited. Many waiters I knew and know make over $50K per year just at one restaurant (and it isn't even a fancy shmancy restaurant, but a family one). Oh, and as for fairness, if you haven't worked in a restaurant, let me clue you in to the reality...wait staff legally have to claim 10% of their sales for tips (though they are technically suppose to claim them all). Most wait staff just claim the 10% even though they walk home with anywhere from 13 - 20% in tips of their total sales. So they too, are being dishonest to the government since they don't want the government to take their money in taxes.

[Mr Fausto]

Originally Posted by Alethiaphile

Not very funny.
The server was probably in need just as was the homeless guy.
You slough right over the fact that there are corporate executives who make 250 times (or more) what I, a lower middle class professional make. Anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with that has no moral sense whatsoever. And that is what is referred to by "spreading the wealth" around.
Terrible, isn't it? Sort of like saying "Let him who has two coats give to him who has none". How socialistic.
Oh wait, that's in the Bible. Uh oh.

That's different, that's charity. If the government steals your second coat and gives it to the one with none, that is socialism. It NEVER works. Will NEVER work. Can NOT work. The Church has explicitly condemned all forms of socialism and Marxist idealogy.

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by stinkcat_14

Of course, this could just be easily solved by having restaurants just add 15% to the bill. If they do this, then it would be a legal obligation and then it would definitely immoral to not leave the tip.




While I agree that the waiter may not be entitled, it people stopped tipping, few people would become waiters. On the other hand, I don't see anything redeeming in stiffing a waiter because he has a different political opinion than me. The proper response would have been to tell the waiter before you order that you will not tip him, or to leave the establishment all together.

People tip because the service was good and the waiter pleasant. Most places that serve the public warn their hirees that proper dress is required. And in most places, that does not include political accessories. Perhaps the waiter learned a valuable lesson that will help him when he applies for a job in a more lucrative establishment.

[stinkcat_14]

Originally Posted by gmarie21

Have you worked in the restaurant business. I'm sure that that waiter will no longer wear political articles on his person when working now knowing that it may affect his income (you would think he'd have the common sense regarding this, but obviously is lacking, then again, you'd think his boss would have the common sense to say "change your shirt").

My wife has worked in the restaurant business for many years. My problem is, if you don't like the the apparel of the waiter, the time to tell him that you refuse to tip him is before he serves you.

As for tips, waiters are NOT entitled to squat.

While this is strictly legally true, let me also remind that the government is not legally obligated to continue paying social security payments. Those can be reduced at anytime, for any amount, for any reason. Social Security recipients are NOT entitled to squat either. So lets pay for the bailout by stopping social security payments, since there is no legal obligation to pay them.