It is not. The extra money is not an extra for the employee. Let's say minim wage is 1000 USD monthly. The employer pays 250 and the government pays 750. Yet all parts benefit fr this. The employee gets a cheap employee that increases how much he can produce, the government gets to tax that, and the employee gets a job. It's an investment
Discussion
where did the government get the 750?
Taxes. Which means that it's not free money
oh I didn't realize we were agreeing. its free for the recipient, and free for the government, but extremely costly for the individual it was involuntarily coerced out of.
The part that we disagree (which we missed by a hair) Is that I'm not against taxes. I think they are required for a country to function. I'm (of course) against politicians stealing taxes
I think this program is perfectly acceptable. Using taxes to get people jobs, evenif the ultimate goal is to be able to tax them, still benefits the employer and employee
I'm not against voluntary taxes. I'm against coercive taxes.
give me a checkbox of things I can choose to pay for (and the resulting services I either get or don't get) and I wouldn't have a problem.
If it's voluntary it's not a tax it's a subscription service.
But we don't trust you to act responsibly so we have to coerce you.
Like I don't know where you live but my taxes pay for people's health care.
Given the choice to opt out of it many would, only to find later they're are seriously ill and then go all Breaking Bad.
Similar with defense, agressors target populations wholesale, not individuals. When North Korea attacks the USA, do we go to Kim Jong Whatever and ask him to please only attack nostr:nprofile1qqsza748zkamgmw4he4hm2xhwqpxd5gkwju38wqh3twmtshx8kv8xvgpr9mhxue69uhhqatjv9mxjerp9ehx7um5wghxcctwvsq32amnwvaz7tmhda6zumn0wd68ytnsv9e8g7gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wdnxcctjv5hxxmmdd79m6g because he didn't subscribe to the defense service?