1. Yes, I know they must be shaped like themselves, but usually things are named descriptively, not shaped to fit their names. If you're saying they're shaped that way because of their name, you're raising more questions than you're answering.
2. "By hook or by crook" refers to the law that the fruit on the tree belonged to the landowner, but the fruit on the ground (windfall) was free for the taking -- and sometimes the wind needed a little help from the not-entirely-honest. And come to think of it, that might actually answer my question.
I've also heard that candy canes are shaped liked shepherd's crooks. But I don't know why shepherd's crooks are shaped like shepherd's crooks. Do they have to break up sheep-fights from a safe distance or something? Pull sheep down from trees? Express bewilderment by visual cue?
Server Sue works a five-hour shift, ostensibly for $3/hr, and collects $85 in cash tips. The tax rate is 20%.
She reports her tips (honestly) and goes home with $85 cash and a paycheck (or pay stub, or whatever) marked "$0".
She fills out her tax return: gross income $15 + $85 = $100, rate 20%, tax $20, withheld $15, tax due $20 - $15 = $5. She takes $5 out of the jelly jar and mails it to the tax collector.
Did I get that right? Does she pay the $5, or does the Fed "eat the difference"? Does she wind up with $80 for that shift? Or $85? Or some other amount? Note that I'm not asking about other things like the price of postage stamps, or MEANINGLESS distinctions like whether she paid $15 or was not paid $15, or was paid and then charged $15. Did I describe the sequence of events and states correctly?
I'm not aware of any wordview/ethical position that says it's OK to not pay people for the work they do.
This might not be the best place to say that.
Anyway, I have a worldview/ethical position in which it is absolutely 100% OK to not pay people for the work they do in some cases. And before you reply, please reflect on the fact that I work hard at my job and you have never paid me. [Note for the logic-impaired: I know that it is not appropriate to expect ottermaton to pay me, I am simply demonstrating the worldview/ethical position in question, and showing that ottermaton's argument requires a great deal work before it can stand on its own, more than I feel like doing today.]
"Huh? Are you implying that this isn't a real situation, that I just made this up?"
No, I was implying that your point was a kind of arithmetical wordplay, whether the situation was real or not.
>But let's be serious again. The server's net income for the evening comes out to $91.32
It doesn't work like that -- more evidence (as if any was needed) that you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh? You said (in your scenario) that the server had "hourly pay" of $2.83 * 5 = $14.15, plus $100 in tips, and had to pay 20% in tax. By my calculation, $14.15 + $100 = $114.15, 20% of that is $22.83, leaving $91.32, but now you add:
Taxes are only taken out of a paycheck. That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference.
That's news to me, but if it's true then I must correct my figure: the server's net income for the evening is $0+$100 = $100, and once again the fact that none of this is in the form of a check means nothing.
I guess the point was lost on you, so I'll give it another shot...
Sure, you can take another shot, as long as you don't change the scenario.
Let's go on the assumption that the net income would have been $100, [and you contributed $30 of it].
You decide you don't wanna tip. Guess what? You have just removed $30 from that servers net income. Now it's only $70.
No, you subtracted it when you changed the scenario. I added it in the first scenario; I didn't add it in the second, just as if I hadn't dined at the restaurant.
[Personal attacks]... You are refusing to pay someone for work they did directly for you without a middleman... the bargain you made when you walked in the door...[personal attacks]...
Ah, now you're no longer talking about numbers, but principle, which is a fair change to make. But look at how that "bargain" works. I have left tips more that 15% many times, but I've never had a server run after me to give me back the surplus. And oddly enough, the convention is a percentage of the price of the dishes, as if the service has anything to do with that. Still, as long as we are now talking about a matter of courtesy and not of accounting, I don't see much to argue about. (But if that's the point you're going for, you might ease up on the personal attacks.)
"A server works a 5 hour shift... The [wages] for that time worked comes out to be $2.83 * 5 = $14.15... [Tips were] $100. [Tax rate is] 20%. So that server owes the gov't $20 in taxes for the amount of tips made. Which comes out of the payroll of $14.15. Obv, that's a negative number. The server's paycheck comes out to be $0."
So if I want to increase the servers paycheck (which naturally I do), then I should refrain from giving a tip, so that the server won't have such a huge tax bill and can take some of those wages home.
I get it, you made a mildly funny math joke, like "What Happened to the Last Dollar?" But let's be serious again. The server's net income for the evening comes out to $91.32, I'm with you so far, go on...
'I sit in the minority who appreciate the removal of comments from news sites... Trying to wade through that shit to find the one or two decent comments isn't anyone's definition of "a pleasant experience".'
I don't understand. You'd prefer not to read the comments at all? Then why not... refrain from reading the comments at all? If you prefer to read the article and not the comments, you can do just that regardless of whether there's a comment section down at the bottom or not.
I understand if you just can't help but dive into the comment section-- really, I do. But wouldn't it be better to have a browser setting, or a separate page, to remove that temptation while still allowing discussion for those who want it?
Police lie under oath. Police officers who perjure themselves are rarely punished. Police informants are often paid in drugs or reduced sentences, and will say anything their handlers want to hear. Lab technicians in forensics labs are rewarded according to how much their results help the police, and can falsify results for years -- even at an implausible rate -- without being caught. Police "drug-sniffing" dogs will "react" when their handlers want them to, and are not removed from service for false positives. Warrants are often issued on the basis of all of the above.
If you find yourself on a jury, remember these facts.
I've been asking for years why we don't a control policy at these police-affiliated, District-Attorney-influenced labs:
"You will be analyzing specimens taken from crime scenes and from suspects in custody, but occasionally some of them will actually be control samples prepared by the Public Defender's office. If you return one false positive, your career is over and the Public Defender's office gets your pension."