Fast-food workers strike, seeking $15 wage, political muscle

[Slyhunter]

But that is ok for ceos.

If it's OK for the low skilled workers, it's OK for anyone. However, you still don't get it. If a company chooses to pay a CEO any amount, it's none of my business. If a company chooses to pay a worker any amount, it's none of my business. It becomes my business when the government mandates it.

Well I own stocks in these companies so it is my business. Love how you have different standards for rich and poor. Very classy.

Don't you pay taxes?

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Let those who have discretionary income pay the lions share of the taxes. Those who are barely surviving shouldn't.

So those who have made it should be required to offset the slack pieces of shit that haven't? I thought living in society meant we were supposed to contribute to society. I guess that only applies to those capable of making it society. If you can't, you should expect others to support you.

What is your alternative? Let them die?

 

[Conservative65]

If it's OK for the low skilled workers, it's OK for anyone. However, you still don't get it. If a company chooses to pay a CEO any amount, it's none of my business. If a company chooses to pay a worker any amount, it's none of my business. It becomes my business when the government mandates it.

Well I own stocks in these companies so it is my business. Love how you have different standards for rich and poor. Very classy.

Don't you pay taxes?

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Let those who have discretionary income pay the lions share of the taxes. Those who are barely surviving shouldn't.

So those who have made it should be required to offset the slack pieces of shit that haven't? I thought living in society meant we were supposed to contribute to society. I guess that only applies to those capable of making it society. If you can't, you should expect others to support you.

What is your alternative? Let them die?

Let those who think one person deserves another person's money support them. I call them bleeding hearts. They are the ones that say part of living in society involves paying things like income taxes yet support almost half that live in the society getting by without paying any. They are the ones that think it's OK to take the hard earned money of someone that actually did something to get it in order that it be handed to someone that did nothing. In fact, they consider those of us who want to keep more of what we actually earned greedy while thinking those who want it given to them as perfectly OK in doing so. They ask questions like you did of what is your alternative.

When they ask such questions, I provide them an alternative. That alternative doesn't involve the government being involved at all, something the bleeding hearts can't fathom happening. My response is that if they believe someone deserves something, write a check. If they think someone without healthcare coverage should have it, pay their premium. The government isn't needed for them to do that. All they have to do is pay it themselves. Most will reply with the "living in a society involves paying taxes". Once again, if so, shouldn't that apply to all living in society rather than just the group they think should pay. What they really mean is the ones they think have too much should pay and pay more so they can feel good about themselves because they supported the government forcing someone else to do something they believed should be done. I have had some say they would IF they could. In other words, they can't do what they think should be done so it's OK for them to demand someone they think has more than enough do it. I've had others say they would gladly pay more in taxes to fund programs they thought were a good idea to which I reply, if it's such a good idea, why do you need someone telling you to do more. Why wouldn't you just do it.

In short, my alternative is if you see a need you feel should be met, meet it yourself. I'll do the same. I can promise you I won't say a damn thing about who you choose to help or how much you should do if you promise me you won't do the same if I don't do it the way you think it should be done. Deal?

 

[Conservative65]

If it's OK for the low skilled workers, it's OK for anyone. However, you still don't get it. If a company chooses to pay a CEO any amount, it's none of my business. If a company chooses to pay a worker any amount, it's none of my business. It becomes my business when the government mandates it.

Well I own stocks in these companies so it is my business. Love how you have different standards for rich and poor. Very classy.

Don't you pay taxes?

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

 

[Brain357]

Well I own stocks in these companies so it is my business. Love how you have different standards for rich and poor. Very classy.

Don't you pay taxes?

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

 

[Brain357]

Well I own stocks in these companies so it is my business. Love how you have different standards for rich and poor. Very classy.

Don't you pay taxes?

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Let those who have discretionary income pay the lions share of the taxes. Those who are barely surviving shouldn't.

So those who have made it should be required to offset the slack pieces of shit that haven't? I thought living in society meant we were supposed to contribute to society. I guess that only applies to those capable of making it society. If you can't, you should expect others to support you.

What is your alternative? Let them die?

Let those who think one person deserves another person's money support them. I call them bleeding hearts. They are the ones that say part of living in society involves paying things like income taxes yet support almost half that live in the society getting by without paying any. They are the ones that think it's OK to take the hard earned money of someone that actually did something to get it in order that it be handed to someone that did nothing. In fact, they consider those of us who want to keep more of what we actually earned greedy while thinking those who want it given to them as perfectly OK in doing so. They ask questions like you did of what is your alternative.

When they ask such questions, I provide them an alternative. That alternative doesn't involve the government being involved at all, something the bleeding hearts can't fathom happening. My response is that if they believe someone deserves something, write a check. If they think someone without healthcare coverage should have it, pay their premium. The government isn't needed for them to do that. All they have to do is pay it themselves. Most will reply with the "living in a society involves paying taxes". Once again, if so, shouldn't that apply to all living in society rather than just the group they think should pay. What they really mean is the ones they think have too much should pay and pay more so they can feel good about themselves because they supported the government forcing someone else to do something they believed should be done. I have had some say they would IF they could. In other words, they can't do what they think should be done so it's OK for them to demand someone they think has more than enough do it. I've had others say they would gladly pay more in taxes to fund programs they thought were a good idea to which I reply, if it's such a good idea, why do you need someone telling you to do more. Why wouldn't you just do it.

In short, my alternative is if you see a need you feel should be met, meet it yourself. I'll do the same. I can promise you I won't say a damn thing about who you choose to help or how much you should do if you promise me you won't do the same if I don't do it the way you think it should be done. Deal?

You really don't live in the real world. You know the poor can vote right?

 

[Conservative65]

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

 

[Conservative65]

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Let those who have discretionary income pay the lions share of the taxes. Those who are barely surviving shouldn't.

So those who have made it should be required to offset the slack pieces of shit that haven't? I thought living in society meant we were supposed to contribute to society. I guess that only applies to those capable of making it society. If you can't, you should expect others to support you.

What is your alternative? Let them die?

Let those who think one person deserves another person's money support them. I call them bleeding hearts. They are the ones that say part of living in society involves paying things like income taxes yet support almost half that live in the society getting by without paying any. They are the ones that think it's OK to take the hard earned money of someone that actually did something to get it in order that it be handed to someone that did nothing. In fact, they consider those of us who want to keep more of what we actually earned greedy while thinking those who want it given to them as perfectly OK in doing so. They ask questions like you did of what is your alternative.

When they ask such questions, I provide them an alternative. That alternative doesn't involve the government being involved at all, something the bleeding hearts can't fathom happening. My response is that if they believe someone deserves something, write a check. If they think someone without healthcare coverage should have it, pay their premium. The government isn't needed for them to do that. All they have to do is pay it themselves. Most will reply with the "living in a society involves paying taxes". Once again, if so, shouldn't that apply to all living in society rather than just the group they think should pay. What they really mean is the ones they think have too much should pay and pay more so they can feel good about themselves because they supported the government forcing someone else to do something they believed should be done. I have had some say they would IF they could. In other words, they can't do what they think should be done so it's OK for them to demand someone they think has more than enough do it. I've had others say they would gladly pay more in taxes to fund programs they thought were a good idea to which I reply, if it's such a good idea, why do you need someone telling you to do more. Why wouldn't you just do it.

In short, my alternative is if you see a need you feel should be met, meet it yourself. I'll do the same. I can promise you I won't say a damn thing about who you choose to help or how much you should do if you promise me you won't do the same if I don't do it the way you think it should be done. Deal?

You really don't live in the real world. You know the poor can vote right?

Which means you have people who don't do shit for society, in many cases take as a result of those of us who do, and choose those that let them continue to be leeches on society. That's why I've said for many years there are two groups in society: 1) Those that work and earn a living and 2) Those that vote for one.

 

[Brain357]

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

 

[Brain357]

Let those who have discretionary income pay the lions share of the taxes. Those who are barely surviving shouldn't.

So those who have made it should be required to offset the slack pieces of shit that haven't? I thought living in society meant we were supposed to contribute to society. I guess that only applies to those capable of making it society. If you can't, you should expect others to support you.

What is your alternative? Let them die?

Let those who think one person deserves another person's money support them. I call them bleeding hearts. They are the ones that say part of living in society involves paying things like income taxes yet support almost half that live in the society getting by without paying any. They are the ones that think it's OK to take the hard earned money of someone that actually did something to get it in order that it be handed to someone that did nothing. In fact, they consider those of us who want to keep more of what we actually earned greedy while thinking those who want it given to them as perfectly OK in doing so. They ask questions like you did of what is your alternative.

When they ask such questions, I provide them an alternative. That alternative doesn't involve the government being involved at all, something the bleeding hearts can't fathom happening. My response is that if they believe someone deserves something, write a check. If they think someone without healthcare coverage should have it, pay their premium. The government isn't needed for them to do that. All they have to do is pay it themselves. Most will reply with the "living in a society involves paying taxes". Once again, if so, shouldn't that apply to all living in society rather than just the group they think should pay. What they really mean is the ones they think have too much should pay and pay more so they can feel good about themselves because they supported the government forcing someone else to do something they believed should be done. I have had some say they would IF they could. In other words, they can't do what they think should be done so it's OK for them to demand someone they think has more than enough do it. I've had others say they would gladly pay more in taxes to fund programs they thought were a good idea to which I reply, if it's such a good idea, why do you need someone telling you to do more. Why wouldn't you just do it.

In short, my alternative is if you see a need you feel should be met, meet it yourself. I'll do the same. I can promise you I won't say a damn thing about who you choose to help or how much you should do if you promise me you won't do the same if I don't do it the way you think it should be done. Deal?

You really don't live in the real world. You know the poor can vote right?

Which means you have people who don't do shit for society, in many cases take as a result of those of us who do, and choose those that let them continue to be leeches on society. That's why I've said for many years there are two groups in society: 1) Those that work and earn a living and 2) Those that vote for one.

The reality is we vote. Given that your ideas are really stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

 

[Conservative65]

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Shit for Brains doesn't know the difference.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good on em. Hopefully they'll get it, or something close. McDonalds has made $Billions off the blood, sweat, and tears of their slave workers. So it gets no sympathy from me. It's time for McDonalds to do some good for a change.

Ya know what it is especially ironic. Your avatar....About government protecting the shit out of the people....Yet you want government to take those batons to business owners to suit your cause.....So it is actually YOU swinging the baton...
Hey genius....Don't be surprise if one day the person you are beating grabs the baton and decides to hit back.

Poor McDonalds Millionaires. Must be rough. I hope they make it.

They'll do just fine. In fact, those McDonald millionaire are taking some of their money and investing it into automation. Some restaurants are virtually employee free. Think of how much they will save by having robots do the work former human employees used to do.

"Every action causes a reaction."
Ray from Cleveland

And unemploying people will make them virtually customer free. Can't unemploy your customer base.

Customers would love it because it would likely mean lower prices. After all, you don't have to pay machines; just keep them maintained and repaired.

 

[Brain357]

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

He can not comprehend either they don't pay the skill and white collar workers how hard they work, they pay them to think.

 

[Brain357]

Good on em. Hopefully they'll get it, or something close. McDonalds has made $Billions off the blood, sweat, and tears of their slave workers. So it gets no sympathy from me. It's time for McDonalds to do some good for a change.

Ya know what it is especially ironic. Your avatar....About government protecting the shit out of the people....Yet you want government to take those batons to business owners to suit your cause.....So it is actually YOU swinging the baton...
Hey genius....Don't be surprise if one day the person you are beating grabs the baton and decides to hit back.

Poor McDonalds Millionaires. Must be rough. I hope they make it.

They'll do just fine. In fact, those McDonald millionaire are taking some of their money and investing it into automation. Some restaurants are virtually employee free. Think of how much they will save by having robots do the work former human employees used to do.

"Every action causes a reaction."
Ray from Cleveland

And unemploying people will make them virtually customer free. Can't unemploy your customer base.

Customers would love it because it would likely mean lower prices. After all, you don't have to pay machines; just keep them maintained and repaired.

Unemployed customers don't buy very much.

 

[Brain357]

Well let's increase what people are paid and they will pay taxes. See how that works?

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

 

[Conservative65]

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

 

[Brain357]

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

And you watch too many television shows. CEO's are not people in a huge office with a putting green like you see in the movies.

CEO's like actors, musicians, sports figures are paid by their past performance. They don't get paid by the hour because they get paid by contract. If a CEO is renown for doubling the growth of a company, the company pays that CEO whatever it takes to make that profit.

If a CEO gets a job at a company and earns 5 million a year, it's likely because he or she brought in 10 million a year in new money. That's a smart business move on behalf of the company because if they didn't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, their competitors will.