# ****A modest suggestion

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on November 11, 1999 at 06:26:29 {mJnjjpluA6tDlUsHAETc79YAW9JMpc}:

In Reply to: ***A modest suggestion posted by jimmyjames on November 11, 1999 at 00:58:21:

Hey Seeker long time no speak. I hope things are going okay for you.

Hey buddy! Things are just fine with me, thanks.

You said:

The Bethel allowances are not considered a salary, but merely living expense reimbursement.
I agree with Snowball. The law (in California, at least) that work can be paid for in either wages or room and board, or both. Either way, they are considered paid. The GB's "living expenses" are monetarily taken care of, which is actually the purpose of "minimum wage"- enough to cover living expenses according to cost of living. I don't think you have to have luxuries to be considered a paid worker.

I'm no expert, but I recall Bethelites not having to declare any income, or do any tax returns. The idea being they were unpaid. If I am wrong, then it is in a strictly legal sense, as in general usage one wouldn't considered Bethelites paid workers.

On the other hand, I do agree that this statement isn't something to get all worked up over. Besides, the WTS has more explicit lies in their literature itself.

That's my main point. Why get worked up over matters that can be argued back and forth? Why not focus on the areas that can't be argued at all?

Seeker

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *****A modest suggestion

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]