Here’s the answer.

[OnePercenter]

Hi OP If we cannot even get ELECTED govt that we HIRE and PAY
to run "effectively enough to lower the costs by cutting the waste," what makes you think you can FORCE free businesses to do so?

Are you willing to pay more to businesses so they can pay more to the workers?

Have you ever run a business on this model you propose?

NOTE: the successful businesses I have seen that create jobs for people
DEPEND on the tax writeoffs for business expenses in order to operate.

If they didn't have that, they couldn't grow or would downsize and people would LOSE THEIR JOBS.

Why don't you focus on cutting down on losses for THEFT and GOVERNMENT WASTE that should be paid back to taxpayers by the wrongdoers?

Why expect businesses to pay for all this? why punish people who aren't breaking laws?

WHERE in your model are you charging the people who actually ABUSE or STEAL money and make THEM pay that back to the taxpayers?

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

If you are backing down all costs and fees, then why not also the salaries to that same level?

OP have you ever run a business at the 2009 levels while paying salaries to workers at the 23 dollar level?

Even the good meaning founders of Ben and Jerry's tried to pay all workers more evenly from top to bottom, tried to reduce the difference percentage wise between salaries at the different levels, and couldn't operate their company that way. Found out it didn't work.

They physically tried this. Have you?

What I'm suggesting is moving taxes and fee's paid by companies to wages for their employees. What's wrong with that?

 

[OnePercenter]

How do expect the businesses with over 200 employees who would not be subsides by the government to recover the increase in costs if they can not raise prices? Economist estimate that prices would have have to rise 20% in fast food restaurants just cover a $15 minimum wage and you are proposing $24.50.

Debating the effects of a $15 fast food wage

Of course they glossed over the fact that a Big Mac increased in price 1200% from 1970 to 2013 which was far more than actual net costs. Could it be more profits derived from more greed?

So, there're greedy bastards. Anytime you pass legislation that significantly increases the cost of doing business, you have to ask yourself how will the business react. How do you think labor intensive businesses will react to a $15 to $17/hr increase in employee pay?

When 100% of their labor costs are subsidized more than they are today? What's wrong with free employees?

 

[OnePercenter]

I understand the tactic of using strong/hostile language to rally the cause and affect change. It is still incorrect. It had never been the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance, it was a perk/bonus to attract quality employees. It was cheaper to offer healthcare and salary than it was to compensate solely through payroll. The idea that we subsidize their insurance is disingenuous.

Since employers were not required to provide insurance, I really don't understand the hostility. The dog groomer down the street does not provide health insurance at all to any of her employees ever. Can we all hate on that evil greedy sob?

If we (general, none of this person specific) want to change things and discuss that change, fine. Why start off being angry and placing blame because people/companies were doing things the way they'd always been done. Why act like the new way is the correct way and everyone who came before was an idiot or an asshole?

As they should. Walmart remains the largest company in the US relying on taxpayers to provide healthcare to their employees.

Employers should not provide healthcare insurance. Compensate employees and let them buy their own insurance. The employee can then choose the plan and company that best meets his needs and he can carry the insurance with him from job to job.

If an employee has to change jobs often, say more than once a year. The employer provided insurance is often more expense than individual insurance because the employee will be subject to deductibles for multiple plans and if he is not careful he can end up with double coverage.

What's the difference? How do you make sure the employee actually buys insurance rather than pocketing the cash?

 

[Flopper]

I understand the tactic of using strong/hostile language to rally the cause and affect change. It is still incorrect. It had never been the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance, it was a perk/bonus to attract quality employees. It was cheaper to offer healthcare and salary than it was to compensate solely through payroll. The idea that we subsidize their insurance is disingenuous.

Since employers were not required to provide insurance, I really don't understand the hostility. The dog groomer down the street does not provide health insurance at all to any of her employees ever. Can we all hate on that evil greedy sob?

If we (general, none of this person specific) want to change things and discuss that change, fine. Why start off being angry and placing blame because people/companies were doing things the way they'd always been done. Why act like the new way is the correct way and everyone who came before was an idiot or an asshole?

Employers should not provide healthcare insurance. Compensate employees and let them buy their own insurance. The employee can then choose the plan and company that best meets his needs and he can carry the insurance with him from job to job.

If an employee has to change jobs often, say more than once a year. The employer provided insurance is often more expense than individual insurance because the employee will be subject to deductibles for multiple plans and if he is not careful he can end up with double coverage.

What's the difference? How do you make sure the employee actually buys insurance rather than pocketing the cash?

Well it makes a lot of difference for the employer. Offering insurance is expensive for large companies, paying a portion of the premiums, administrative costs, plus the cost in selecting the companies and plans. Large companies usually have dedicated HR people just to handle insurance.

When evaluating a job offer, benefits are difficult to evaluate in terms of dollars and cents. It's better to have compensation in dollars where possible then the job and salary become the considerations.

If the employee doesn't buy health insurance, the employer could withhold sick leave benefits or they could leave it up the government since it's illegal not carry health insurance.

 

[Flopper]

Of course they glossed over the fact that a Big Mac increased in price 1200% from 1970 to 2013 which was far more than actual net costs. Could it be more profits derived from more greed?

So, there're greedy bastards. Anytime you pass legislation that significantly increases the cost of doing business, you have to ask yourself how will the business react. How do you think labor intensive businesses will react to a $15 to $17/hr increase in employee pay?

When 100% of their labor costs are subsidized more than they are today? What's wrong with free employees?

I thought your subsidy was only for companies with less than 200 employees.

 

[Tresha91203]

Your 'doing things the way they'd always been done' statement isn't true. Before Reagan changed the HMO act effectively eliminating competition in the insurance industry, companies would regularly provide healthcare for their employees because it was cheap. I know this because I wrote the checks. Today, healthcare is expensive and generally not affordable to individuals. Companies are subsidized for providing healthcare insurance (which all should be doing) and not raising net by letting taxpayers do it.

]

[/QUOTE]

Ugh, I had a good response then lost it when I tried to post the link to the US Census Bureau. I was young and, although I thought I was, not very well informed. I don't remember it being that much more common. In 1997, the percentage of firms offering health insurance was 66% compared to 61% in 2012. The highest was 69% in 2010 and the lowest 59% in both 2007 and 2009. It hasn't changed much year to year and bounces up and down. That data is from Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Based Benefits 2012. I also looked at US Census info for same but only found to 2010. The Census used 15 and older so showed 46.4% in 1997 and 41.4 in 2010. The changes seemed to jive so I used Kaiser for the most recent data. The Census did show an increase in participation by 5% of employees from 1997 to 2010 due to eligibility but decreases in employee participation of 5% due to choice and other.

I still think we should remove the employer from the equasion. It can still be a benefit for them to contribute to your personal plan, but I'd much prefer the individual make those coverage choices.

 

[OnePercenter]

So, there're greedy bastards. Anytime you pass legislation that significantly increases the cost of doing business, you have to ask yourself how will the business react. How do you think labor intensive businesses will react to a $15 to $17/hr increase in employee pay?

When 100% of their labor costs are subsidized more than they are today? What's wrong with free employees?

I thought your subsidy was only for companies with less than 200 employees.

It is. Why would a company with 200 or more employees need a subsidy?

 

[OnePercenter]

Benefit: Billions in increased sales tax revenue.

 

[OnePercenter]

Benefit: Billions in increased sales tax revenue.

Benefit: You don't have to shop at Walmart anymore!

 

[OnePercenter]

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

 

[Tresha91203]

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

How are you going to get the rest of the world to back their prices back to 2009 and hold them there for 10 years?

 

[Avatar4321]

.

Yikes.

What was the QUESTION?

How do you fix the economy.

If you want to fix the economy, as in get it working again, just get out of the way. People will naturally do what's in their best interest and that will push the economy forward.

If you want to fix the economy, as in prevent it from having children... well your method might work then.

 

[OnePercenter]

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

How are you going to get the rest of the world to back their prices back to 2009 and hold them there for 10 years?

They won't have a choice.

 

[Tresha91203]

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

How are you going to get the rest of the world to back their prices back to 2009 and hold them there for 10 years?

They won't have a choice.

I don't think we are as important as you seem to think we are. The rest of the world will be just fine if we become some mediocre power. They don't care. They don't think we are special. Someone else will step up in our absence, one of them, and the world keep plodding forward, while we step back into 2009 ... and stay there till 2025.

 

[Avatar4321]

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

How are you going to get the rest of the world to back their prices back to 2009 and hold them there for 10 years?

They won't have a choice.

Which is why you will fail. You cannot compel to follow you. You can only persuade them to. If you force people to do what you want, the second they have a chance, they will rebel. But if you get people to go along with you voluntarily because it's in their interests, you'll have the power to do much good.

 

[Listening]

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Subsidize all business with less than 200 employees the difference (if any) all taxes and fees vs total employee expenses.

There's not much hope for the middle class of the US.

Historically, price freezes do not work.

They've never been done like this.

And my guess is that the people who argued for them in the 1970's thought they had a handle on it too.

There's a real problem with trying to control our economy this way. It is far to large and complex. The failure of Obamacare to this point and the all the unrealized promises (and in fact...things going in the opposite direction) only point out that anytime you try to fool with the economy to achieve an end.....it only comes back to bite you.

The real answer is to take government away as a means of power grabbing by the uber rich.

And you've never answered why we are obligated to raise the minimum wage or even have one at all.

 

[Listening]

Benefit: Billions in increased sales tax revenue.

Benefit: You don't have to shop at Walmart anymore!

Nobody has to shop at Walmart now.

Just what do you think is going on out there ?

 

[Listening]

Incorrect.

McD trains it managers to keep labor under 20%, then they figure 10% for management, meaning labor is at 30%, just like all other restaurants strive for.

In fact, if you own a restaraunt and consult with anyone on menu pricing they teach you. Figure 30% for labor 30 for food costs 30% for other costs and 10% profit and there you have your menu prices.

McDonalds franchises are slightly under on labor costs , on average, and around the same on food costs and slightly higher on other costs becuase of fees that McD corporation charges, and in fact MANY franchise owners are getting sick of it and demanding that McD lower their fees.

McD prevents franchise owners from paying higher wages unless they wish to take it out of their 10% because they REFUSE to lower their fees

Why McDonald's franchisees are simmering- MSN Money

I don't blame the owners of these franchises feeling that anything less than 10% is not worth the trouble and thus not raising wages, I DO blame the corporation for raising rates to such an extent that they are making more off a franchise than the owner AND the employees combined.

How do expect the businesses with over 200 employees who would not be subsides by the government to recover the increase in costs if they can not raise prices? Economist estimate that prices would have have to rise 20% in fast food restaurants just cover a $15 minimum wage and you are proposing $24.50.

Debating the effects of a $15 fast food wage

Of course they glossed over the fact that a Big Mac increased in price 1200% from 1970 to 2013 which was far more than actual net costs. Could it be more profits derived from more greed?

You have data on how much it costs to make a big mac or run a McDonald's. Please share.

That or retract the post.

What does economics tell you. It tells you that if McDonalds was raking it in with profits on big macs, there would be competitors show up to go after those margins. Have they showed up ? Yes. Does that mean they are all raking it in ? Not hardly. Anytime you have competition (legally), you'll have low prices.

So, the only way McDonalds can sustain this is if they have some kind of advantage. Please explain to us how your statements are justified in terms of specific costs and the advantages McDonald's enjoys.

 

[Listening]

I've been having this debate with my son. There is no real evidence that increases in the minimum wage on the scale of past increases is inflationary. But there are two caveats:
1. If you take the position that future increases will also not be inflationary, you are relying on the substitution effect replacing low cost labor as a mechanism to get there. So you really can't argue that low wage employment will be unaffected, especially for large changes.
2. Data from smaller stepped changes might not apply to larger changes (like to $15 per hour).

Overall, I support an increase to say $15 an hour in stages and indexing to the CPI. But I'm not arguing there will be no employment effects, just that as part of a program for economic growth such an increase would play a positive role.

I don't have the data in hand, but from what I recall there are no many people working at minimum wage. That tells you that competition is driving wages up and that the current mnimum wage isn't an issue.

I suspect that if you raise it to the point that you've exceeded the current market value of labor on a substantial basis...you'll see inflation.

Rasing it to 23 an hour is surely going do some damage as that is 45,000/year. That is almost a 3X increase.

 

[driveby]

I'll take things whacked out moonbat Marxists say for $200 Alex.


Answer:

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

Question:

How could one destroy the economy faster than Obama and the democrats of today?.......