Here’s the answer.

[BillyZane]

If I had to take a guess I would say it is because you are delusional.

The fact that those five states do not have minimum wage laws does not mean that the federal mini9mum wage laws do not apply in those states.



http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm

Here is the applicable section of the US Code.

29 U.S. Code § 206 - Minimum wage | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now that I have established that, despite your delusions and/or lies, that every single person that works at any business in the US is covered by federal minimum wage laws you can no longer claim that the lack of a minimum wage law is to blame for the lack of rich people in the states you listed.

I guess that puts the ball back in your court, so I will repeat my question, how is McDonald's, KFC, or Pizza Hut, going to move their cooking to those third world countries? Do they have Star Trek transporters? Magic mushrooms? Hypersonic rocket planes?

I do have another question. Since I have proven that you are completely wrong about the lack of a minimum wage making things really bad, is it remotely possible that I am right?

No in fact you are COMPLETELY wrong in your belief that the government shouldn't dictate a minimum wage.

The reason being is that because in this country we are not going to allow people who are working to starve simply because employers don't want to pay reasonable wages, instead we will supplement those wages with welfare.

The ONLY question is where do we draw the line? Personally I don't think it's right at all that people are getting rich while their employees get MY tax dollars to supplement their low wages, apparently you think that its okay.

Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour?

um because that's a ridiculous proposition that has no place in serious conversation?

 

[Andylusion]

No in fact you are COMPLETELY wrong in your belief that the government shouldn't dictate a minimum wage.

The reason being is that because in this country we are not going to allow people who are working to starve simply because employers don't want to pay reasonable wages, instead we will supplement those wages with welfare.

The ONLY question is where do we draw the line? Personally I don't think it's right at all that people are getting rich while their employees get MY tax dollars to supplement their low wages, apparently you think that its okay.

Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour?

um because that's a ridiculous proposition that has no place in serious conversation?

LOL.

Leftist- "Let's make the minimum wage $20/hr."

Economist- "No, because the minimum wage kills jobs and harms the economy"

Leftist- "No the minimum wage does not harm the economy, and has no negative effects"

Economist- "You can't be serious. If you believe that, why not have the minimum wage $100/hr?"

Leftist- "Der..... because that's a ridiculous proposition that has no place in serious conversation?"



Look.... either the minimum wage has negative effects.... or why not just make it whatever you want? Why not $200/hr? Or why not $1,000 an hour?

Oh, because it does have negative effects, and if you drive up the price of labor, no one will hire anybody.

So the question is simply a matter of the degree to how much the negative effect is from the minimum wage.

Or.... you are denying there is a negative effect, and we should just raise the minimum wage to $200K a year for everyone! No negative effect, let's all live the life of the wealthy.

It's either one or the other. Pick one, but don't sit there waffling, and acting incredulous for us to follow YOUR logic to it's conclusion. Either the minimum wage has negative effects, or it doesn't. Pick one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No in fact you are COMPLETELY wrong in your belief that the government shouldn't dictate a minimum wage.

The reason being is that because in this country we are not going to allow people who are working to starve simply because employers don't want to pay reasonable wages, instead we will supplement those wages with welfare.

The ONLY question is where do we draw the line? Personally I don't think it's right at all that people are getting rich while their employees get MY tax dollars to supplement their low wages, apparently you think that its okay.

Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour?

um because that's a ridiculous proposition that has no place in serious conversation?

Where, exactly does it stop being serious? Why is $10.10 serious, but $15 a joke? How does $4.90 put that number into whackadoodle territory? How can ignorant jerks, like me, understand the difference?

 

[OnePercenter]

Dear One Percenter:

For your model, you are better off setting up your own business network
run on bartering, and see the natural cost of maintaining the businesses
and managing the exchanges.

THEN you can ADJUST your structure to match practical reality.

Paul Glover of Ithaca HOURS has seen the difference between what
makes a sustainable local economy last, and why they fail. He says it
takes one full time person PAID to do the managing between the
cooperating member businesses.

So if you are the paid point person, you can set up your own cooperative
and see if it can work on 23.50 per hour. But your job is always going to be different.
These are not going to be equal.

He has seen sustainable systems work at 10.00 per labor hour
with an exception for doctors and lawyers that needed to be paid more credits per hour
due to added licensing and operating costs regulated by government.

You can learn from his system what works and what doesn't,
to add to and refine your own model. Including why people can't be paid all the same.

No one here is going to convince you otherwise.
You'd have to experience it for yourself, like Paul Glover did when setting up
independent currency cooperatives for local communities,
and Ben & Jerry when the executives tried to equalize the pay structure as
much as possible, but found there was a limit. They couldn't even get the
pay rates within the projected range of each other, much less all the same
without the company finances falling apart. You might want to research
other people who have done close to what you are asking, and see what interferes.

All of which has nothing to do with my plan. My plan simply moves an existing business expense (total taxes and fees) into the pockets of their employees for an immediate increase in spending in the local economy.

 

[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.

It seems pretty drastic and draconian. Why not just a simple 3 or 4 tiered Flat Tax?
You want to up the minimum wage? how about killing the subsidies then for those that are employed. Why not try to address the actual cash value of all that is redistributed by various Government entities that make up for the low minimum wage?

Whats 'pretty drastic and draconian' about moving the base for all wages to equal price increases?

 

[OnePercenter]

Nearly all of those would be horrible. And it's so obviously bad, it's hard to believe you would even post something like this. Worse yet, the damage of most of these would be compounded by the others.

So let's triple the cost of labor, with a insanely high minimum wage.
Then let's eliminate tax deductions, write offs, write-downs, thus drastically increasing cost on business.
Then let's lower prices.
Then let's force the sell off of all off-shore investments, thus eliminating that source of revenue for our companies.

So costs to business go up. Taxes on business go up. Revenue from goods sold goes down. Revenue from off-shore investments go down.

Do you know what happens next? Half the business throughout the country go bankrupt. Hundred million people or so, end up unemployed. The US sinks to 3rd world status in a matter of years.

Bad plan. Stupid plan. Need to learn some economics, and then rethink your entire position.

Why don't you read the plan. Costs of supplies to businesses would goes down. Taxes for businesses are eliminated. Hundreds of millions would be spending more in businesses which would increase business revenues, sales tax revenue, and GDP. Businesses would need more workers, not only to off-set taxes, but because of increased business.

Who cares about off-shore profits.

Who cares? You realize that during the down turn, many of our domestic businesses were kept afloat by off-shore revenue?

Off-shore monies are tax shelters. Why would a company repatriate non-taxed monies to keep afloat?

Think about it like diversification. Why do people invest in mutual funds, instead of single stocks? Because of diversification. If you have all your money tied up in a single company, and that company crashes, you end up broke. If you invest in a mutual fund that buys stock in hundreds of companies, and one company fails, you don't lose much, because the other 99 companies are not all failing at the exact same time. Thus your investment is safer.

Right? Well as a company, if you have all your investment, 100% of it tied up in one single economy, and that one single economy crashes, then your company goes bankrupt and is gone. Whereas, if you invest in several economies, and one goes bad, the others do well.

People invest in mutual funds because they don't understand investing and rely on someone else.

GM Asia is making a profit right now, as is GM America, whereas GM Europe is in the red right now.

Do not foolishly assume that if you prevented international investment, that the American economy will never have a recession again.

We will, no matter what policy we put and place, and when that recession happens, you will want foreign investments keeping domestic companies alive.

I never wrote 'foreign investments', I wrote off-shore.

Back to taxes and Business.

I went back and re-read the plan you described. The way it was written, does not indicate you intended to eliminate taxes on business.

Not so. If a business off-sets 1 to 1 taxes with employees costs, doesn't that effectively eliminate taxes?

However even so, you don't really mean that even now. I know you don't, because you have said numerous times in other threads that you support the income tax. Well the biggest tax on business..... *IS* the income tax.

The vast majority of businesses in America today (and the world), are all sole proprietorships. What that means is, there is one dude who owns the business. There is no "company money" and "personal money". If I own a lawn car business, every dollar the business earns, is my earnings.

So if I earn $80,000, I have to pay income taxes on my business earnings, because they are *MY* earnings.

Thus.... if you say you want to eliminate business deductions, and business write-offs, and business write downs... such as the deduction for the depreciation of my lawn care business equipment.... You are increasing my taxes, which are taxes on my business. I have less money to keep my business going, less money to grow it, less money to hire people, and so on.

A sole proprietor is nothing more than a self-employed person. Nothing changes. If you hire employees, you should change you status to an LLC, or for piecework such as you're eluding at, a 10-99 employee.

But let's even suggest that possibly you just mean to eliminate corporate taxes.

This still won't do any good. The harm you are doing, will far out weight the minor benefits.

Let's say that I'm CEO of Lawn Corp. We do business mowing lawns. Now let's say that we charge $40 to mow a lawn, and we pay the employee $20 to mow each lawn. That's $20 profit.

Now there are a few tax on business operations, but most taxes are on profits. So let's say that corporate taxes are 50%, and I lose $10 of the $20 in taxes, and profit $10 for every lawn mowed.

Now you come along, and double the cost of labor, but eliminate corporate taxes.

Sounds good. So now the cost of labor is $40. So I charge $40, pay out $40, and end up with $0 profit. But at least my taxes are lower on that profit..... oh wait... there is no profit!

So what happens now is, without profit, I have no retained earnings to repair the lawn mower. When the mower breaks, the job is over, the company is closed, and the employee is now unemployed.

See, you can cut all the taxes in the world, and that won't help if you drive up the cost of labor. Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.

But if you push other policies that eliminate those earned profits, all the tax cuts in the world do not make up for that.

So even with your new updated plan, it still won't work. You will still ruin the entire economy, and destroy jobs and doom the US to a 3rd world status.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 dropping employee costs to $24.02 which is then 100% subsidized for companies with 200 or less employees.

Let's figure out net. $40.00 - $10.00 = $30.00 - $3.00 for equipment maintenance = $27.00 per lawn.

Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.

Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you read the plan. Costs of supplies to businesses would goes down. Taxes for businesses are eliminated. Hundreds of millions would be spending more in businesses which would increase business revenues, sales tax revenue, and GDP. Businesses would need more workers, not only to off-set taxes, but because of increased business.

Who cares about off-shore profits.

Off-shore monies are tax shelters. Why would a company repatriate non-taxed monies to keep afloat?



People invest in mutual funds because they don't understand investing and rely on someone else.



I never wrote 'foreign investments', I wrote off-shore.



Not so. If a business off-sets 1 to 1 taxes with employees costs, doesn't that effectively eliminate taxes?



A sole proprietor is nothing more than a self-employed person. Nothing changes. If you hire employees, you should change you status to an LLC, or for piecework such as you're eluding at, a 10-99 employee.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 dropping employee costs to $24.02 which is then 100% subsidized for companies with 200 or less employees.

Let's figure out net. $40.00 - $10.00 = $30.00 - $3.00 for equipment maintenance = $27.00 per lawn.

Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.

Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.

Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

Ummmm, if your revenue is $40.00 and your employees expenses are $34.02, your profit is $5.98. You also have equipment costs for trucks, mowers and gasoline.

Your profit is much, much less than $5.98. Why would you pay $10.00 in tax?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dear One Percenter:

For your model, you are better off setting up your own business network
run on bartering, and see the natural cost of maintaining the businesses
and managing the exchanges.

THEN you can ADJUST your structure to match practical reality.

Paul Glover of Ithaca HOURS has seen the difference between what
makes a sustainable local economy last, and why they fail. He says it
takes one full time person PAID to do the managing between the
cooperating member businesses.

So if you are the paid point person, you can set up your own cooperative
and see if it can work on 23.50 per hour. But your job is always going to be different.
These are not going to be equal.

He has seen sustainable systems work at 10.00 per labor hour
with an exception for doctors and lawyers that needed to be paid more credits per hour
due to added licensing and operating costs regulated by government.

You can learn from his system what works and what doesn't,
to add to and refine your own model. Including why people can't be paid all the same.

No one here is going to convince you otherwise.
You'd have to experience it for yourself, like Paul Glover did when setting up
independent currency cooperatives for local communities,
and Ben & Jerry when the executives tried to equalize the pay structure as
much as possible, but found there was a limit. They couldn't even get the
pay rates within the projected range of each other, much less all the same
without the company finances falling apart. You might want to research
other people who have done close to what you are asking, and see what interferes.

All of which has nothing to do with my plan. My plan simply moves an existing business expense (total taxes and fees) into the pockets of their employees for an immediate increase in spending in the local economy.

How many times do people have to explain to you that, under current tax law, all expenses that go toward salaries and benefits for employees are already deductible?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Off-shore monies are tax shelters. Why would a company repatriate non-taxed monies to keep afloat?



People invest in mutual funds because they don't understand investing and rely on someone else.



I never wrote 'foreign investments', I wrote off-shore.



Not so. If a business off-sets 1 to 1 taxes with employees costs, doesn't that effectively eliminate taxes?



A sole proprietor is nothing more than a self-employed person. Nothing changes. If you hire employees, you should change you status to an LLC, or for piecework such as you're eluding at, a 10-99 employee.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 dropping employee costs to $24.02 which is then 100% subsidized for companies with 200 or less employees.

Let's figure out net. $40.00 - $10.00 = $30.00 - $3.00 for equipment maintenance = $27.00 per lawn.

Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.

Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.

Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

Ummmm, if your revenue is $40.00 and your employees expenses are $34.02, your profit is $5.98. You also have equipment costs for trucks, mowers and gasoline.

Your profit is much, much less than $5.98. Why would you pay $10.00 in tax?

Because math is hard.

 

[OnePercenter]

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 dropping employee costs to $24.02 which is then 100% subsidized for companies with 200 or less employees.

Let's figure out net. $40.00 - $10.00 = $30.00 - $3.00 for equipment maintenance = $27.00 per lawn.

Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.

Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

Ummmm, if your revenue is $40.00 and your employees expenses are $34.02, your profit is $5.98. You also have equipment costs for trucks, mowers and gasoline.

Your profit is much, much less than $5.98. Why would you pay $10.00 in tax?

Because math is hard.

For Toddsterpatriot and you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

Ummmm, if your revenue is $40.00 and your employees expenses are $34.02, your profit is $5.98. You also have equipment costs for trucks, mowers and gasoline.

Your profit is much, much less than $5.98. Why would you pay $10.00 in tax?

Because math is hard.

For Toddsterpatriot and you.

Is that why you feel corporations pay tax on revenue, not profit, because you're so good at math?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Are y'all now just totally sure of the answer, since the question was actually never asked?


Here:


42!

 

[Tresha91203]

You are assuming it will take one worker one hour, clock in to clock out, per lawn. That's not gonna happen, and now you are losing money. You fork over personal money to make payroll or you fold.

 

[OnePercenter]

Because math is hard.

For Toddsterpatriot and you.

Is that why you feel corporations pay tax on revenue, not profit, because you're so good at math?

I never wrote that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For Toddsterpatriot and you.

Is that why you feel corporations pay tax on revenue, not profit, because you're so good at math?

I never wrote that.

Sure you did.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

 

[OnePercenter]

Is that why you feel corporations pay tax on revenue, not profit, because you're so good at math?

I never wrote that.

Sure you did.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

You mean the mock lawn company where I explained how my plan works?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never wrote that.

Sure you did.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

You mean the mock lawn company where I explained how my plan works?

Yes, the one where you claimed taxes are charged on revenue.
The idiotic claim that I am mocking.

 

[Andylusion]

Off-shore monies are tax shelters. Why would a company repatriate non-taxed monies to keep afloat?

First, that's false. Profits made in off-shore investments, are taxed by the country in which they were made.

Second.... why would they bring back off-shore profits to stay afloat? Either you didn't state your question correctly, or that's not a very smart question. Like saying "why would I empty out my European bank account in order to avoid losing my home to foreclosure?" Durr... cause I don't want to lose my home?

People invest in mutual funds because they don't understand investing and rely on someone else.

Yeah. That's a supportable claim. Go prove that one.

I never wrote 'foreign investments', I wrote off-shore.

Same difference. What do you think they are doing with it? Companies don't move money out of the country pointlessly. There's a reason. It's to gain an investment somewhere else.

What exactly do you think they are doing? You can't just earn money and not pay taxes, because you sent the money to the Holland. If you could, and it was cheap to do, we'd all be doing that. I'd be doing that.

They are paying taxes on that money. They just want to grow an investment outside the US, because there are some really good investments off-shore.

A sole proprietor is nothing more than a self-employed person. Nothing changes. If you hire employees, you should change you status to an LLC, or for piecework such as you're eluding at, a 10-99 employee.

Huh? LLCs, act the same as sole proprietorships (unless they specifically elect to be a C corporation). They are not "corporations" under the tax code, and do not have income tax.

If I own a lawn care business, and place it in an LLC, it's still my sole proprietor business. I am tax directly on my earning from the LLC. There is no corporate tax on an LLC. Thus all tax deductions denied my business, are denied me. I end up paying more taxes on my income, which is the business income.

Not so. If a business off-sets 1 to 1 taxes with employees costs, doesn't that effectively eliminate taxes?

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 dropping employee costs to $24.02 which is then 100% subsidized for companies with 200 or less employees.

Let's figure out net. $40.00 - $10.00 = $30.00 - $3.00 for equipment maintenance = $27.00 per lawn.

No. You don't pay taxes on 'revenue' under the current system. When the customer pays $40 for the lawn cut, we don't pay $10 in taxes on that $40. You pay taxes on the 'profit'. You pay taxes on the profit after you take out the cost of operating.

But let's say that under your system, you pay taxes on revenue......
Your math is wacky, or you failed miserably to explain it right. If you tax me $10 for $40 in revenue, and the employee cost is 24.02, and then add $3 for equipment maintenance.... That leaves only $3 profit.

And your $3 for equipment is hilarious. For a standard quality push mower, we're talking $150 to replace. $3 would barely cover the gasoline, let alone a replacement mower. And to do a commercial lot, a commercial mower is upwards of $6K.

But the bottom line is, if I'm only making $3 profit from mowing lawns, that's a bad investment on my part as the company owner. I should close the company down, lay everyone off, and go do something else with my money.

Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.

That doesn't make sense. You want to cut employee costs, but increasing pay roll taxes, and sales taxes?

If you drastically increase the cost of purchasing goods, while at the same time drastically cutting people's income, this is good for the economy how?

 

[OnePercenter]

Is that why you feel corporations pay tax on revenue, not profit, because you're so good at math?

I never wrote that.

Sure you did.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

Under my plan the $10.00 tax is deductible 1 to 1 and the balance $24.02 is 100% subsidized leaving an employee net cost of $10.00 and a net employer profit of $30.00.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never wrote that.

Sure you did.

So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00

Under my plan the $10.00 tax is deductible 1 to 1 and the balance $24.02 is 100% subsidized leaving an employee net cost of $10.00 and a net employer profit of $30.00.

How is a tax, tax deductible?
Are you stoned?

leaving an employee net cost of $10.00 and a net employer profit of $30.00

Now $40 in revenue only gives the employee $10 while the employer gets $30 and the government gets $0 in taxes?