Law Questions and Answers
Do you support a fast food rates (or McTax) to subsidize health protection insurance for the poor?
Put like a 30% charge on fast food similar to there is on smokes and use this money to subsidize condition care for the poor who will also be incented to bring in healther food choices.Answers: just make higher the 99 cents burgers to $19.99 each, later people will believe twice about buying fastfood. it'll deter more folks from getting fat and have weight related robustness problems. then again, why do folks, who work hard and already enjoy health insurance & want fastfood still own to pay the mctax for other general public? I think adjectives employers should tender a subsidized health precision program for their employees surrounded by which they pay a monthly allowance.
Actually, there *are problems* beside this one. Fast food is too narrow and too specific--for most poor populace it's an occasional indulgence at best, and we can't afford much better *already*. So basically, close to a lot of poor taxes it punishes nation for being poor as much as anything (telling them, "no, you can't step out to eat at adjectives, we'll tax the hell out of the places you be able to afford.").
Still, I'd close to the idea if it be expanded a little to include some of the unhygienic choices people get *all over*.
--Put a tax, right to be heard of 15%, on all food products made near *high fructose corn syrup*. This way you snag both hurriedly food *and* the junk foods (like carbonated soda/pop beverages) at the grocery store that relations of *non-poor* economic background might end up buying.
Not to mention...society will get rid of the stuff to avoid the toll, which will both a) make foods well again, and b) give farmers extra *corn syrup* to work next to.to make *fuel* out of (ethanol) versus food. Sounds resembling a win-win to me!
--Put another tax on *added fats* within general. Taxing trans fat isn't going to be enough--manufacturers will just avoid the tax fat, to some extent like they did beside cholesterol and saturated fat in the 1970s and 1980s. So rates *all fats* that are added above and beyond the fat content of individual ingredients.
Again, I'd read out the rate should be about 15%. And yes, this would take home *peanut butter* harder to make, but hey.
--Finally.levy a special levy on *anything* that is a Breaded/Deep-Fried moral. Say, a tax of 20%. Yes, this one's going to hurt.folks love their fried chicken across *all* monetary classes, but.
This is the big one right here. Just ask anyone about "Mississippi stoutness risk" and "deep-fried foods" and see the response you get. And yes, those phrases are surrounded by quotes so you can search by copy and stick, no typing needed (hell, it was within Yahoo! News recently, if you want to know where on earth to look).
But yeah, this way, you pause up getting a fairer tax structure. You wind up up levying taxes on foods that are unhygienic for *everyone* and that are also *bought by* everyone, not *just* poor folks who can't *afford* too many more taxes.
And by taxing *ingredients* and not *products*, you don't receive *quite* so much hell raised by specific businesses...a High Fructose Corn Syrup Tax basically sounds easier to swallow than a *Pepsi Tax*, even if the Corn Syrup tax ends up hitting soft drinks the hardest. ^_^
But hey, what do I know? -_- I'm merely one of those "poor people" you politicians want to *punish*..
Thanks for your time though.
got communication for you...it just isn't the poor who do not hold health carefulness. there are seriously of hard working those who do not have it because the company they work for does not provide it.
or those who do hold it...have soaring deductibles and premiums with 80/20 payoff.then their are the folks who have to retire and when they do, they lose their benefits and are not behind the times enough for medicare..if they do hold medicare but do not have satisfactory money to pay for Part B and Part B medicare..have need of I go on? don't only blame it on the fast food industry. A lot of empire do not receive the proper care precipitate on because they just cannot afford it.next to or without insurance.
How does Hillary Clinton's proposed health aid system effect the doctors in the USA?
Doctor malpractice premiums hang on to rising, is Clinton's system going to turn us into Canada? Socialized medicine is great for the culture, but you lose well cultured and talented doctors.this is why so lots canadiens seek carefulness in the USA, canadien doctors are not tremendously skilled.Answers: It won't affect them at all because she is going to forget it once she gets what she wishes. Just like she did within 1992. The first time she not only said she be going to fix health effort, but was in reality appointed to that very point. I wonder how that is going?
I surmise she is crazy to run on a health meticulousness platform considering her documented massive failure surrounded by that area already.
Imagine have the paycheck of a government hand, but still being a broad open target for malpractice lawsuits.
Also suppose having 3 to 4 times the long-suffering load, beside many of your patients man dangerous, obnoxious street inhabitants.
If Hillary get her process, there'll be no reason to be a doctor, and lawyer will still have a paddock day driving up adjectives of our insurance premiums.
Her GW speech suggests she's avoiding a socialized system, though it does move insurance away from actuarial towards social contract style. This is not so leftist as you might imagine.
I one-sidedly think we ought to bear malpractice completely out of the tort system and move to a no-fault recompense for adverse outcomes, irrespective of whether the discouraging outcome is because of an error, much less whether somebody is at breakdown for it.
Canadian doctors stack up well against US doctors, and alike can be said for the reputation of, say McMaster compared to US counterparts. It's the system that have flaws, as all systems do, and the US, have no single system of health perfectionism, offers a plethora of alternatives.
I hold read the dribs and drabs of detail of her plan.
It doesn't address any of the real cause of our health strictness troubles.
1. The drug companies have a monoply on expensive, vital medications.
2. Trial lawyer line their pockets near huge windfalls from malpractice suits.
3. Insurance companies smudge their pockets with expensive malpractice premiums.
All three of these industry sector (drug companies, lawyers, insurance companies) relentlessly whine that their costs are high-ranking, and so they must pass those costs along to consumers. However, adjectives 3 of these sectors rake surrounded by enormous profits, quarter after quarter, regardless of the state of the reduction. Therefore they are complete liars.
She also intends to reenforce the current system of having your form insurance tied to your employer, which is utter insanity. What has your opening got to do beside your health insurance? I'll narrate you what. Corporations have big gaping pockets, and the insurance companies love selling giant blanket policies through corporations. If they tried to sell robustness insurance at those same rates to private citizens, nobody could afford it. If you think your company's "group" healthcare plan is getting a "accurate rate", add up what YOU and YOUR COMPANY must contribute on your behalf. You'll see it's no barter.
So, to sum up:
Drug industry, lawyers, insurance companies are what have ruined the healthcare system. Hillary is taking on NONE of these. She is going to saddle YOU and ME with a export tax that will simply further line the pockets of those industries and FORCE everybody to use their services.
Swell.
oh, is she trying to come up next to a health attention system AGAIN? don't worry...won't crop up.
Living in Illegal apartment and getting 2 months to move out beside toddler?? Can we get more time to move?
My husband and I beside our 1yr old son live surrounded by an illegal attic apartment... When we moved within we didn't think it be illegal until our friends told us it be when we have already moved contained by. (we have no fire escape and we reimburse no utilities because apartment doesn't have own meter)We moved contained by with no lease but our innkeeper was recounting us that they want to move into the attic themselves because the basement apartment isn't within livable condition for the winter and they are giving us till about Mid. Nov to move.
Is at hand anyway we can get more time to look? We really dont enjoy the money to move at all and my husband is the merely one working at the time... We just spent a intact bunch of money fixing our car so we're pretty tight.
Moving near a toddler in the cold isn't going to be much fun to fire up with.
any tips??
Answers: Getting two months to move out is in reality a lot of time. Where I live they usually donate two weeks, a month the max.
I agree with one of the posts, you should hold done your research before you even moved within. But I am pretty sure that a tight situation forced you and your husband to make that finding. I also agree with another post, apply for assisted living. Everything have a solution. Don't panic, stay cool and you will find a way.
While what your going through stinks.unhappily since the apartment is illegal...you own very little rights. Two months within NJ is 1 month more than you are legally allowed, so count your blessings that you hold that much time. As far as some of the other posts suggesting you call the zoning board or police.NOT advisable, since once the town/county finds that you are within an illegal, they will fine the manager and demand that you vacate the part within a couple of days...here within NY it's only 3 days to move out or the sheriff comes to assistance you move. Sorry about your situation...but your best bet is to find some place else to live asap.
What is the minimum salary for salaried force in California?
My employer wishes to promote me to a salaried member of staff and i was wondering if in that is a minimum salary. I'm a governor at a record store if that help.Answers: It's the same as minimum wage. Your gross must be equal to at least minimum wage when pro-rated for the hours you work.
So...if your pay is $200/week, and you work 40 hours a week...it's illegal.
There are no law I'm aware of regarding minimum salary. That's usually up to the employer. You could check a website like Monster.com or other employment site to find out what a typical stipend is for the type of work you do in your state.
Edit:
How do you bring a thumbs down for an answer like this?
Minimum Salary surrounded by California is non-existent. California has a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour that will step to $8.00 an hour on January 1, 2008. Salary does not include over time. And many minimum hourly wage job discourage over time.
Recently ticketed for throwing fries back at a drive thru pane. What are my legal option?
A few days ago I received the rudest, slowest, incompetent service at a McDonalds drive thru window. The hand insulted me on a personal level & practically threw the pouch of food into my hands. I retaliated but throwing the sleeve of full-size fries right back at the drive thru pane (unfortunately she closed it fast).Anyway, the next reflect on you know the police arrive at my house - tell me I must travel back and apologize to the worker & sock me near a $200 littering fine.
I really did nothing wrong & plan to confrontation this littering ticket. I plan to plead not guilty & on my court date prepare a defense for myself claiming I tossed the fries out the window to nurture the seagulls that normally lurk for scraps contained by the parking lot.
What are my chances of have the fine dismissed?
Answers: You were insulted on a personal height by a person working for McDonald's while on the clock. Bring this information to a advocate and see if you can sue. If it turns out that you have no grip, take this situation as a research experience. Throwing food is not a proper method of action or counter goings-on in a professional environment. If something close to this happens again. Simply contact the store supervision and inform them of their employee's behavior. You might get a free banquet out of it.
I would say your likelihood are not good.
You said the hand was rude, slow, and incompetent. These things may be wrong, but are not unlawful.
Depositing solid waste on the ground is informal. Your defense of feeding the seagulls will show the mediate a lack of accepting responsibility for your movements, and you will not get any sympathy.
In the adjectives, you should always bring these matter to the managers attention. A considerable corporation like McDonalds does not tolerate rude force. You may have even gotten a free banquet out of it! Speaking to the manager very soon will probably not do you any good, seeing he will suggest it is out of retalitation.
Your reaction be immature. If you plan on resolving adjectives of your conflicts in the adjectives with this type of mechanical response, you are in for deeply of misery.
If you have a problem near an employee of a business, speak beside their manager. If the controller does not satisfy you, speak next to their boss until you get it resolved.
That's the process intelligent, civilized people behave. Grow up.
What do you indicate you did nothing wrong? You threw something at someone!
Plus, you're planning to sprawl in court. (Do you really imagine the judge is going to buy that lame story?)
You're lucky they're not charging you beside something worse than littering.
You'll be much better off if you own up to losing your ill will, apologize to the employee, and settle up the fine. Be a man. Take responsiblity, and chalk this up as a learning experience.
Whatever you do, don't pretend to the court.
I'd suggest you spend some time with an attorney. It's possible that the employee's behavior be egregious enough to exonerate your response. If that's true, it's still a concern of presenting the facts to the court, and a layperson might not know how to do that.
If it was really outrageous behavior, you might economically have a lawsuit against McDonald's. Minimum wage folks in service job aren't generally allowed to insult customers and throw lots of food at them. It would have to be really outrageous to win, but you might acquire them to leave you alone.
Chances are not perfect. Any judge contained by the world will see through your seagulls defense.
You're not going to want to hear this, but ... no matter what the hand did, you took it to the next smooth (and also kinda showed your @ss). No matter how necessary you think you be, you actually did do something wrong. There are deeply better ways to get put a bet on at a rude employee -- a complaint would enjoy put the worker in his/her place, gotten you some free food probably, and not gotten you within trouble with the cops. Assault is unwanted touching, and I would read out that a face full of fries indeed qualifies. You should hold thought of the consequences before you lost your ill will.
Whats Legal anymore?
Im trying to do a asignment for my class on copyright, and i just cant stand it anymore, adjectives of these diffrences between canada and the U.S. half of it dosnt net any sence. What i have gather is that it is LEGAL for Canadians to download music, but ILLEGAL to Upload, why is this so? Why is it legal to download music but not movies. The entire copyright canon makes no sence.Copyright is supposed to protect a piece of work against otheers from reproducting that work as their own, what does this hold to do with downloading music or movies?
Im sorry but does anyone own any idea, or is everyone equal as me?.
Answers: Don't try to make law from different countries try to make sense compared to respectively other. Interests---and therefore laws---develop differently and will other be somewhat different from each other.
Is it legal to embed a P2P TV player broadcasting copyrighted channel and sports in blogs?
Is it legitimate to embed a P2P TV (eg. sopcast, TVU) player broadcasting copyrighted channels and sports surrounded by blogs? Whether any legal arrangements can be taken against the blog owner?Answers: what do u think?
no not decriminalized but who cares
consent to other enjoy the energy and defeat the globalisation
My brother was supposed to be home from Iraq 4 days ago, how can I find him?
He be over there, doing pest control, but have to come back to Texas, to renew his license. We final heard from him on 09-05-07, by e-mail. He be supposed to arrive in Austin on the 12th. When he didn't show, I call his work number in Iraq, and the man that answered sounded Iraqi, but didn't know anything roughly my brother. How can I find out where he is, or what happen to him? We are very worried.Answers: I help yourself to it your brother was over within doing private contracting work not with the military? That could variety it a little more difficult. Try to grasp in touch beside his company. In the future conceivably purchase one of those satellite phones for when he goes backbone .
Do you have information on his flight(s) he be to be on? Don't worry too much right presently, he could have be delayed for any number of reasons. When my (ex)husband be deployed over there it be always a mess when he come back. One time he be weeks late. But again, that be in the military...civilian is definately different circumstances.
When within doubt always run with the Red Cross...they can help out find anyone.
Where is his command homeported?
(ex coastie here)
example:
Stryker Brigades.Fort Lewis Washington.
Uh oh, sounds like Iraqi insurgents took over his bureau and captured him. If you don't see him within a few months maybe you could write a missive to the president or to the news networks.
Need advice??
Dose anyone hold any information or has gone through something similar to this. Im 22 yrd old and my girlfriend is 17yrs ripened we have be dating for almost a year know we never told her mother we were going out but other hanged out. Well in a minute shes pregnant and we havent told her parents we told my parents that are more understanding than her parents her dad might be more sympathy than her mother on the other hand will break hell loose. okay we have asked for officially recognized advice already and hold asked what could happen since shes underage we both want to gain merried and want to keep the kid. What would happen if the mother dosent agree but the father dose ?Answers: You said that you own asked for legal suggestion. Who did you ask and what was the answer? I can individual answer for NJ since state laws differ a large amount. Your particular example is not a crime contained by NJ unless (ready for these? I'm not trying to be funny here either - at hand is some sick stuff that goes on out there) you're related to her, or, hold supervisory power (teacher, baby sitter), or, within some way a guardian. What you stipulation to do is *read the actual statue* in your state that applies to this and see what it say (as opposed to what you or your buddy heard). It may give somebody a lift some work but you'll find it on the internet or library. If you need lawful advice, see an attorney (I'm not an attorney surrounded by any state so this isn't legal advice). As far a breaking the report to her parents, I can't help you on that. Best of luck.
surrounded by what state do you live?
EDITED BASED ON CALIFORNIA.
Guess what? Daddy NOR mommy is likely to consent since you own committed statutory rape. I suggest you contact an attorney.
AND SINCE YOU DIDN"T LIKE MY ANSWER:
Here is something else to chew on. It doesn't matter if mommy and daddy approve of your bridal. The state can still prosecute you for statutory rape. They have adjectives the evidence they need, the tot.
Check your state laws. In some states if she is pregnant, she doesn't necessitate her parents to sign for her to get married, IF that's what you prefer to do. How far along is she and when will she turn 18. Maybe you two can wait to inform her parents then. I be in that same situation, sort of. I be 16, my boyfriend, now husband, be then 18. My parents unloved it at first, but then get over it as time passed and they realized any they can be mad and not enjoy their grandchild in their energy or be supportive.
Wasn't there a monarch who would guillotine anyone who appeared in their dreams...?
Wouldn't that be a right way of getting rid of ethnic group you didn't like? How could you shelter against such a charge?Answers: Henry VII of the House of Tudor is rumored to have beheaded several due to doomed to failure dreams, but this is only rumor. No tough evidence exists except for Anne Boleyn's head rolling down the cobblestone nouns.
More Questions and Answers:
[949] - [971] - [1590] - [570] - [1802] - [479] - [1274] - [679] - [265] - [2419] - [1035] - [1885] - [2040] - [757] - [628] - [1805] - [1046] - [1461] - [2363] - [1477]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: