Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

Bern google the 2007 US budget
corporate income tax collected was about 350 billion
cut it to 175 billiom frees up enough wealth to pay 16 million people 6 dollars more an hour
I have another thread that shows we have 48 million on food stamps
you think those 16 million would still be on food stamps?
Medicare?
Medicade?

 

[JRK]

Halliburton charged $20/meal- not to mention billions too much for constructon, crappe security...etc etc etc...

To get a hot dog from the USA to Iraq, have a place to cook it, then cook it, to clean it and repeat it, thats cheap
Goggle there profit margin in Iraq theymade and then go away. This thread is about a living wage, your in the way and you arguments have facts to support them.
halliburton made about 3%, google it

 

[JRK]

Why is it every thread has a spammer show up that is also a loon, never checks there claims

 

[francoHFW]

Raising the min wage increases consumer demand like crazy. Prices nothing like Pubspin...

 

[Bern80]

Why would it change?
The thing Bern keeps missing here is that companies set the price for there widget by estimating all of there cost, adding there desired profit and there you have it

If a company was given a tax break of 1 dollar for every dollar that was added to there labor cost there product would cost the same, there fore there would be no reason for any cut backs on jobs

I keep going back to Bacon Davis. Copmpanies that have to add bare labor cost to there bottom line to do that kind of work, every-one does

Didn't miss anything JRK. What YOU don't get, or I guess forgot you said, is that increased expenses are passed on to consumers. This a company is going to pass on the extra labor cost in the form of increase in price on widgets. The problem is the economic concept YOU don't get called equilibrium. That is a price are small range of prices that a seller is comfortable selling at AND a consumer is comfortable buying at. The price in crease as a result of the pay increase will have one of two effects on consumers. Either it will raise the price of the product such that people simply won't buy it. Or they will find an alternative that is priced less.

The later is a real issue for the company I work for. We build a product that directly competes with a couple other companies that build basically the same thing. Unfortunately one of these competitors is having their product built overseas. So they can sell basically the same thing at the same price as we do or even a little less and maintain a larget profit margin on that product than we can. So we can't price our product above what the competition sells their substitute for. This being a high volume product and thus inexpensive to the consumer it has rather low profit margin. Meaning we can't afford to have expenses increas much and still be able to be profitable on that product. Our production employees, the people that build the product, I think are at about 9-10/hr now. And you're asking for a 25% increase in their pay. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

What part of lower taxes to offset that expense have you missed?
You keep changing the rules to fit you argument
No-one has said anything about raising one without cutting the other, it would be a wash. Why dont you ask your self one question
how is Australia doing it?

No. I have heard you state your 'two pronged' approach several times. What YOU missed is that the corporate tax rate has nothing to do with your value to your employer. Even if you cut the tax rate in half it isn't going to make labor more valuable.

How is Australia doing it? How many times do I have to tell you they're not? The same products in Australia cost 25%-30% more there than they do here. There's your wash JRK.

 

[francoHFW]

Eat Pubcrappe and die, Pub Dupes. I thought spam was BS from the Examiner or the Telegraph LOL. Funny thing I'm right always, and you're dittoheads...back in a flash, chumps...

 

[JRK]

Raising the min wage increases consumer demand like crazy. Prices nothing like Pubspin...

franco wat r uo to?
are u a paid spmmer?
move on . org?

 

[francoHFW]

Google has pages and pages of "Halliburton waste in Iraq"- from real news services...

Halliburton Iraq Waste Exposed by Waxman's Hearing Today ...
Halliburton Iraq Waste Exposed by Waxman's Hearing Today.

Democratic Underground... - Cached - SimilarKBR Bills $5 Million For Mechanics Who Work 43 Minutes a Month ...
Mar 25, 2010 ... It was just a single contract for a single job on a single base in Iraq. The
Department of Defense agreed to pay the megacontractor KBR $5 ...

motherjones.com/.../kbr-idle-hands-iraq-balad-contract-waste-pentagon-report-hearing - Cached - SimilarHalliburton Watch
US War Privatization Results in Billions Lost in Fraud, Waste and Abuse--Report.
8 June 2009 ... Former Halliburton subsidiary gets giant Iraq contract. 14 May ...

Halliburton Watch - Cached - SimilarMore On Iraq And Halliburton - CBS News
Sep 24, 2004 ... But waste and theft are silent players in Halliburton's Iraq operations, according
to two men who drove supply trucks for Halliburton subsidiary ...

www.cbsnews.com/.../09/.../main645545.shtml - Cached - SimilarHalliburton and KBR Sued Over Iraq Contamination | Iraq Business ...
Sep 11, 2010 ... Halliburton Co. and KBR Inc. must face lawsuits brought by military ... and toxic
emissions from burning waste in Iraq and Afghanistan, a judge ...

www.iraq-businessnews.com/.../halliburton-and-kbr-sued-over-iraq-contamination/ - Cached - Similar

Somehow the Army meals cost 1/10 as much as Halliburtons...

 

[Bern80]

Raising the min wage increases consumer demand like crazy. Prices nothing like Pubspin...

And unemployment. If what you say were really true, then producers are going to see that signal and say well if all these people will buy our widgets at this price, let's see if they'll buy them for a little more. See the problem? That's why you're seeing the housing crash you're seeing now. It used to be 'easy' to 'buy' a home. So home prices were really high because there was so much demand. Now that reality has kicked in for the people that took all those 'easy' mortgages, housing prices are plumeting. You and JRK need to understand in the free market nothing happens in a vacuum. Changes in one variable lead to reactions by other variables. It's those reactions that are commonly called the laws of unintended consequences to people like you two. They are reactions to your proposals that you simply don't, or refuse to see.

 

[francoHFW]

I like truth- change the channel...

 

[JRK]

I like truth- change the channel...

Franco all of your links proved nothing and as far as meals going up as you stated, I have no idea how that is proved
Write a thread about it dude, this thread is not about Halliburton dude, now go away or i am putting you on ignore

 

[JRK]

Raising the min wage increases consumer demand like crazy. Prices nothing like Pubspin...

And unemployment. If what you say were really true, then producers are going to see that signal and say well if all these people will buy our widgets at this price, let's see if they'll buy them for a little more. See the problem? That's why you're seeing the housing crash you're seeing now. It used to be 'easy' to 'buy' a home. So home prices were really high because there was so much demand. Now that reality has kicked in for the people that took all those 'easy' mortgages, housing prices are plumeting. You and JRK need to understand in the free market nothing happens in a vacuum. Changes in one variable lead to reactions by other variables. It's those reactions that are commonly called the laws of unintended consequences to people like you two. They are reactions to your proposals that you simply don't, or refuse to see.

Bern if you put my name in the same breath as Franco again I will put on ignore. What he says and I am all about has nothing to do with the other.
Bern your ignoring every rebbutle I have given you lately, do not resort to a game that Left wing kooks resort to, if you do what does tha make you

 

[kwc57]

Why would it change?
The thing Bern keeps missing here is that companies set the price for there widget by estimating all of there cost, adding there desired profit and there you have it

If a company was given a tax break of 1 dollar for every dollar that was added to there labor cost there product would cost the same, there fore there would be no reason for any cut backs on jobs

I keep going back to Bacon Davis. Copmpanies that have to add bare labor cost to there bottom line to do that kind of work, every-one does

Didn't miss anything JRK. What YOU don't get, or I guess forgot you said, is that increased expenses are passed on to consumers. This a company is going to pass on the extra labor cost in the form of increase in price on widgets. The problem is the economic concept YOU don't get called equilibrium. That is a price are small range of prices that a seller is comfortable selling at AND a consumer is comfortable buying at. The price in crease as a result of the pay increase will have one of two effects on consumers. Either it will raise the price of the product such that people simply won't buy it. Or they will find an alternative that is priced less.

The later is a real issue for the company I work for. We build a product that directly competes with a couple other companies that build basically the same thing. Unfortunately one of these competitors is having their product built overseas. So they can sell basically the same thing at the same price as we do or even a little less and maintain a larget profit margin on that product than we can. So we can't price our product above what the competition sells their substitute for. This being a high volume product and thus inexpensive to the consumer it has rather low profit margin. Meaning we can't afford to have expenses increas much and still be able to be profitable on that product. Our production employees, the people that build the product, I think are at about 9-10/hr now. And you're asking for a 25% increase in their pay. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

What part of lower taxes to offset that expense have you missed?
You keep changing the rules to fit you argument
No-one has said anything about raising one without cutting the other, it would be a wash. Why dont you ask your self one question
how is Australia doing it?

You have this false assumption that if a company's taxes were decreased, they would automatically shift the dollars to wages. Why do you think that? Or would the shift to higher wages just be more of your government expansion program where they tell a business how to operate. Most companies would pocket the difference or put it back into the company where needed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Didn't miss anything JRK. What YOU don't get, or I guess forgot you said, is that increased expenses are passed on to consumers. This a company is going to pass on the extra labor cost in the form of increase in price on widgets. The problem is the economic concept YOU don't get called equilibrium. That is a price are small range of prices that a seller is comfortable selling at AND a consumer is comfortable buying at. The price in crease as a result of the pay increase will have one of two effects on consumers. Either it will raise the price of the product such that people simply won't buy it. Or they will find an alternative that is priced less.

The later is a real issue for the company I work for. We build a product that directly competes with a couple other companies that build basically the same thing. Unfortunately one of these competitors is having their product built overseas. So they can sell basically the same thing at the same price as we do or even a little less and maintain a larget profit margin on that product than we can. So we can't price our product above what the competition sells their substitute for. This being a high volume product and thus inexpensive to the consumer it has rather low profit margin. Meaning we can't afford to have expenses increas much and still be able to be profitable on that product. Our production employees, the people that build the product, I think are at about 9-10/hr now. And you're asking for a 25% increase in their pay. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

What part of lower taxes to offset that expense have you missed?
You keep changing the rules to fit you argument
No-one has said anything about raising one without cutting the other, it would be a wash. Why dont you ask your self one question
how is Australia doing it?

You have this false assumption that if a company's taxes were decreased, they would automatically shift the dollars to wages. Why do you think that? Or would the shift to higher wages just be more of your government expansion program where they tell a business how to operate. Most companies would pocket the difference or put it back into the company where needed.

That isn't what he initially said. He wants government to reduce taxes on business and then MANDATE that business pay a living wage on the theory that will wipe out poverty and save us all a lot of money.

 

[Bern80]

Bern if you put my name in the same breath as Franco again I will put on ignore. What he says and I am all about has nothing to do with the other.

Well except that it seems you are both advocating for a mandated living wage........

Bern your ignoring every rebbutle I have given you lately, do not resort to a game that Left wing kooks resort to, if you do what does tha make you

Not so JRK. It has been explained to you repeatedly why your solution won't work. It is you who has failed to counter those rebuttals.

You conveniently ignored the fact that in your beloved Australia, products cost more than they do here.

Yoy never did answer whether unemployment goes up or down when the min wage increases.

And you have failed to counter argue the stated reactions to your solution:

Why WON'T unemployment increase under your solution?

Why WON'T the costs of goods and services go up right along with the minimum wage?

How exactly is using government to make businesses pay people above what the market says their worth a conservative solution?

 

[JRK]

Didn't miss anything JRK. What YOU don't get, or I guess forgot you said, is that increased expenses are passed on to consumers. This a company is going to pass on the extra labor cost in the form of increase in price on widgets. The problem is the economic concept YOU don't get called equilibrium. That is a price are small range of prices that a seller is comfortable selling at AND a consumer is comfortable buying at. The price in crease as a result of the pay increase will have one of two effects on consumers. Either it will raise the price of the product such that people simply won't buy it. Or they will find an alternative that is priced less.

The later is a real issue for the company I work for. We build a product that directly competes with a couple other companies that build basically the same thing. Unfortunately one of these competitors is having their product built overseas. So they can sell basically the same thing at the same price as we do or even a little less and maintain a larget profit margin on that product than we can. So we can't price our product above what the competition sells their substitute for. This being a high volume product and thus inexpensive to the consumer it has rather low profit margin. Meaning we can't afford to have expenses increas much and still be able to be profitable on that product. Our production employees, the people that build the product, I think are at about 9-10/hr now. And you're asking for a 25% increase in their pay. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

What part of lower taxes to offset that expense have you missed?
You keep changing the rules to fit you argument
No-one has said anything about raising one without cutting the other, it would be a wash. Why dont you ask your self one question
how is Australia doing it?

You have this false assumption that if a company's taxes were decreased, they would automatically shift the dollars to wages. Why do you think that? Or would the shift to higher wages just be more of your government expansion program where they tell a business how to operate. Most companies would pocket the difference or put it back into the company where needed.

with respect do you use an accountant? have you ever been auditied?
The deal would require a W-2 to verify the event no different than claiming fuel as an expense
As I stated back some time ago, a dollar for dollar credit for every dollar that wages were increased. As long as wither that employee was employeed or was replace, that tax credit would be available

 

[JRK]

Bern if you put my name in the same breath as Franco again I will put on ignore. What he says and I am all about has nothing to do with the other.

Well except that it seems you are both advocating for a mandated living wage........

Bern your ignoring every rebbutle I have given you lately, do not resort to a game that Left wing kooks resort to, if you do what does tha make you

Not so JRK. It has been explained to you repeatedly why your solution won't work. It is you who has failed to counter those rebuttals.

You conveniently ignored the fact that in your beloved Australia, products cost more than they do here.

Yoy never did answer whether unemployment goes up or down when the min wage increases.

And you have failed to counter argue the stated reactions to your solution:

Why WON'T unemployment increase under your solution?

Why WON'T the costs of goods and services go up right along with the minimum wage?

How exactly is using government to make businesses pay people above what the market says their worth a conservative solution?

Bern I told you not to put that left wing loons ideas and mine in the same page.
What part of that simple demand do you not understand? Is that your way of getting out of this?

Bern you cannot rebutte an item that does not exist

I told you why the cost would not go up did I not? what part of a dollar for dollar exchange dont you get?
You raise wages for those making under the new minimum wage, you get a dollar for dollar tax break

And that link you supplied that shows goods in Australia are higher than it is here I missed

What part of a tax cut to a small business is a liberal idea? What part of cutting the amount we subsidize PEOPLE thru the federal govt, as many as 16 million using the table I have used here-in getting off of Medicare, Medicade, Well-fare dont you get?

people who make 15,000 a year land in the govt subsidize world
people who make 28,600 do not unless you have kids, an even then it would not be the same as 15000
people who make 15,000 a year pay 0 taxes, 28,600 do
15,000 no health ins
28,600, could
15,000 no car ins
28,600 could
15,000 no car
28,600 used car so you can sell it and buy a new one
15,000 food stamps
28,600 no food stamps

You want me to go on?

Your taking all of this as some liberal idea? and that it does nothing to the economy?

We are probably talking 2.00 earned for every dollar used to do this because you would also be bringing 20 million people into a place where they actually paid taxes also

Bern you keep going back to things that have nothing to do with this, and do not associtate me with hacks just because you think coporations have something to do with this. with the exception of some added work for the accountants at the end of the year, the corporation has no place in this entire event
The consumer pays it all Bern

 

[Bern80]

Bern I told you not to put that left wing loons ideas and mine in the same page.
What part of that simple demand do you not understand? Is that your way of getting out of this?

I said because you are both proposing what is undeniably a leftist policy. That the government make businesses pay people a living wage.

I told you why the cost would not go up did I not? what part of a dollar for dollar exchange dont you get?
You raise wages for those making under the new minimum wage, you get a dollar for dollar tax break

That has nothing to do with how the market reacts to people having more money.

And that link you supplied that shows goods in Australia are higher than it is here I missed

Never gave one only because it's not exactly hard info to find. Just do a simple search for some household item. Compare what you can buy it for in the U.S. vs. what it costs in Australia. I'm kind of a gamer so I looked up video game consoles. All of which cost about 30% more there. I also know the products our company builds sell for more there than they do here.

What part of a tax cut to a small business is a liberal idea? What part of cutting the amount we subsidize PEOPLE thru the federal govt, as many as 16 million using the table I have used here-in getting off of Medicare, Medicade, Well-fare dont you get?

This where you continue to remain extremely dishonest. You can't be that obtuse. It is not your tax cuts that we are calling liberal. You have been told this several times. It is you wanting to use government to make a private business pay people a living wage that is a liberal idea.

people who make 15,000 a year land in the govt subsidize world
people who make 28,600 do not unless you have kids, an even then it would not be the same as 15000
people who make 15,000 a year pay 0 taxes, 28,600 do
15,000 no health ins
28,600, could
15,000 no car ins
28,600 could
15,000 no car
28,600 used car so you can sell it and buy a new one
15,000 food stamps
28,600 no food stamps

You want me to go on?

Your taking all of this as some liberal idea? and that it does nothing to the economy?

We all get that JRK. We all know how they math works out how if people had 28.6k they could afford what they can't on 15k. That is not nor has ever been the ******* point. The point has been HOW to get the 15k to 28.6k. Your solution is it's an employer's responsibility to just give it to them. You said everything we need to know about how liberal you really are when you asked 'how do we get government to get these people more money'. THAT IS THE WRONG QUESTION. It isn't government's job to get these people more money. It's there own job to do whatever they have to do to get the money they need to live on.

 

[JRK]

Bern I told you not to put that left wing loons ideas and mine in the same page.
What part of that simple demand do you not understand? Is that your way of getting out of this?

I said because you are both proposing what is undeniably a leftist policy. That the government make businesses pay people a living wage.

I told you why the cost would not go up did I not? what part of a dollar for dollar exchange dont you get?
You raise wages for those making under the new minimum wage, you get a dollar for dollar tax break

That has nothing to do with how the market reacts to people having more money.



Never gave one only because it's not exactly hard info to find. Just do a simple search for some household item. Compare what you can buy it for in the U.S. vs. what it costs in Australia. I'm kind of a gamer so I looked up video game consoles. All of which cost about 30% more there. I also know the products our company builds sell for more there than they do here.

What part of a tax cut to a small business is a liberal idea? What part of cutting the amount we subsidize PEOPLE thru the federal govt, as many as 16 million using the table I have used here-in getting off of Medicare, Medicade, Well-fare dont you get?

This where you continue to remain extremely dishonest. You can't be that obtuse. It is not your tax cuts that we are calling liberal. You have been told this several times. It is you wanting to use government to make a private business pay people a living wage that is a liberal idea.

people who make 15,000 a year land in the govt subsidize world
people who make 28,600 do not unless you have kids, an even then it would not be the same as 15000
people who make 15,000 a year pay 0 taxes, 28,600 do
15,000 no health ins
28,600, could
15,000 no car ins
28,600 could
15,000 no car
28,600 used car so you can sell it and buy a new one
15,000 food stamps
28,600 no food stamps

You want me to go on?

Your taking all of this as some liberal idea? and that it does nothing to the economy?

We all get that JRK. We all know how they math works out how if people had 28.6k they could afford what they can't on 15k. That is not nor has ever been the ******* point. The point has been HOW to get the 15k to 28.6k. Your solution is it's an employer's responsibility to just give it to them. You said everything we need to know about how liberal you really are when you asked 'how do we get government to get these people more money'. THAT IS THE WRONG QUESTION. It isn't government's job to get these people more money. It's there own job to do whatever they have to do to get the money they need to live on.

Bern Bern Bern
Its the govt job to tkae money from me and give it to a person who does not make enough to get out of there programs
The govt sets the minimum wage Bern, not the business
Bern exlain to me why it is the govts place to set a wage that is to low, a corporate tax that is to hi, but is not there place to cut one an equal amount to raise the other?

The only thing you see that it is the govt place is to set a minimum wage that is to low and a corporate tax rate that is to hi, why is that?

cutting taxes is not a liberal idea
adjusting the minimum wage to cut govt spending is not a liberal idea
Bern do you understand what the term cash flow means? I mean really understand what it means?

 

[Bern80]

Bern I told you not to put that left wing loons ideas and mine in the same page.
What part of that simple demand do you not understand? Is that your way of getting out of this?

I said because you are both proposing what is undeniably a leftist policy. That the government make businesses pay people a living wage.



That has nothing to do with how the market reacts to people having more money.



Never gave one only because it's not exactly hard info to find. Just do a simple search for some household item. Compare what you can buy it for in the U.S. vs. what it costs in Australia. I'm kind of a gamer so I looked up video game consoles. All of which cost about 30% more there. I also know the products our company builds sell for more there than they do here.



This where you continue to remain extremely dishonest. You can't be that obtuse. It is not your tax cuts that we are calling liberal. You have been told this several times. It is you wanting to use government to make a private business pay people a living wage that is a liberal idea.

people who make 15,000 a year land in the govt subsidize world
people who make 28,600 do not unless you have kids, an even then it would not be the same as 15000
people who make 15,000 a year pay 0 taxes, 28,600 do
15,000 no health ins
28,600, could
15,000 no car ins
28,600 could
15,000 no car
28,600 used car so you can sell it and buy a new one
15,000 food stamps
28,600 no food stamps

You want me to go on?

Your taking all of this as some liberal idea? and that it does nothing to the economy?

We all get that JRK. We all know how they math works out how if people had 28.6k they could afford what they can't on 15k. That is not nor has ever been the ******* point. The point has been HOW to get the 15k to 28.6k. Your solution is it's an employer's responsibility to just give it to them. You said everything we need to know about how liberal you really are when you asked 'how do we get government to get these people more money'. THAT IS THE WRONG QUESTION. It isn't government's job to get these people more money. It's there own job to do whatever they have to do to get the money they need to live on.

Bern Bern Bern
Its the govt job to tkae money from me and give it to a person who does not make enough to get out of there programs
The govt dets the minimum wage Bern, not the business
Bern exlain to me why it is the govts place to set a wage that is to low, a corporate tax that is to hi, but is not there place to cut on an equal amount to raise the other?

The only thing you see that it is the govt place is to set a minimum wage that is to low and a corporate tax rate that is to hi, why is that?

Wasn't it you that complained to me about not addressing your points?