many people left with jobs in the workforce, are doing double duty as a minimum already...they are doing the jobs they used to do, plus they are picking up the slack and are doing the jobs of those who got laid off....a pay cut in addition to this, may not be reasonable.
Considering the the cut will go to stimulate the economy and give Corporations incentives to hire more workers, this will lower the burden on those working now. You would be surprised how one person can lessen the burden on ten, but also add to production, and lower your taxes headed towards unemployment nonproductive people. And the pay cut wouldn't have to be permanent. Once work starts picking up again, corporations can afford to be more generous.
The alternative seems to be taking the nation down and everybody losing their jobs and homes.
You have a basic misconception. Sending money to the government does one thing: Reduce its impact.
If you want an employer to hire people in your country or state or county or city or neighborhood, you need to entice that employer to do so.
Your plan is to set up a web of rules and restrictions that can be withdrawn at any moment, increased, amended or otherwise constrict to "entice" people who relish the idea of guiding their own actions. This is lunacy. It's like feeding lettuce to lions.
The lions will walk away and you are left with the sheep.
Your plan will create AmTrak. Again. Oh, wait... Is that you, Barrack?
Last edited: