hey democrats ! are yall ready for 5 dollar a gallon gasoline ?

[danielpalos]

Care to cite your reasoning?

It's called math. 21% is more than 12%.

The federal income tax is more graduated than that.

You're talking about people making minimum wage.
They'd be taxed, at most, 12%.

Show us, right wingers:

Income Tax Calculator - USA - Salary After Taxes

neuvoo™ 【 Online Salary and Tax Calculator 】 provides your income after tax if you work in USA. We calculate how much your payroll will be after tax deductions in any region. Find your net pay for any salary. Our data is based on 2020 tax tables from USA

neuvoo.com

Someone making a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates around nine times more federal income tax revenue: $1,618.00


View attachment 423459

With a $15 minimum, 52 weeks x 40 hours a week = $31,200.

A single earner, the first $9,875 taxed at 10% = $987.50.
The rest, $21,325, taxed at 12% = $2,559. Total = $3,546.50

The employer deducts $31,200 reducing taxes by $6,552 (21% rate).

We are quibbling what it means to small and local business in a local economy, as it relates to the general Government.

One full time fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage worker providing full time labor input to the economy generates nine times more in federal income tax than that same individual person does at the current minimum wage. A nine to one ratio. We don't need low skill minimum wage jobs that can be easily automated in modern times.

We are quibbling

Showing your math error is not quibbling.

generates nine times more in federal income tax

And the increase is less than the decrease in corporate income tax revenues.

Not my math error. An employer can lay off eight people and still provide the general Government with more tax revenue from one full time person at the higher rate. Higher ratios make your position even less credible.

On a per year basis, individual and total population basis:

from current minimum wage labor at 7.25	19,380	31,008,000,000
from fifteen dollar an hour wage labor	185,200	296,320,000,000

So to pay for the one well paid employee, you would put eight people out of work? How do you suppose they will live?

More tax revenue means we can afford to solve simple poverty via UC.

UC will never solve simple poverty, and it was never meant to do so. That is what welfare (and other programs) are meant to do.

Why not? It is the most cost effective solution. Coincidence or conspiracy?

No, it is not the most cost effective solution. Plus, UC involves taking money from your last employer. How long should they have to pay you for not working?

UC is for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is temporary. It may be extended during more difficult times. But it is not open ended.

A simple re-adjustment could make that tax burden more equitable. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is an externality to the private sector and providing for the general health and safety is a State obligation.

The "simple re-adjustment" you want is to make the UC program into the welfare program. Why duplicate the programs when their intended purpose is not the same?

UC is not welfare because it actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

And it does so for a temporary period of time while the worker searches for another job. You want UC to be unending with no job searching involved.

Employers are not required to hire anyone, not even in alleged Right to Work States. Equal protection of the laws.

No, they are not required to hire anyone. But they WILL hire someone with the skills they need to run a profitable business.

Why is Labor required to have a work ethic that has the effect of depression wages instead of engendering an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional manner?

Why do you expect other to work to pay you for doing nothing at all?

Employment is at the will of either party. Capitalists can always raise the wage if they are upset Labor doesn't want to work Cheap in our first world economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see the point. You miss the point that UC is partly paid for by the employee. There is nothing that the "re-adjusted" UC will provide that welfare does not already provide.

That can be changed. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a State concern not a private sector concern.

And the state answers that with welfare and other social programs.

And there is no need to "re-adjust" a program so that it can do exactly what an existing program already does.

UC at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour is much more effective at automatic stabilization and multiplier effect.

No it is not. That is an outright lie.

Show a link that proves that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Care to cite your reasoning?

It's called math. 21% is more than 12%.

The federal income tax is more graduated than that.

You're talking about people making minimum wage.
They'd be taxed, at most, 12%.

Show us, right wingers:

Income Tax Calculator - USA - Salary After Taxes

neuvoo™ 【 Online Salary and Tax Calculator 】 provides your income after tax if you work in USA. We calculate how much your payroll will be after tax deductions in any region. Find your net pay for any salary. Our data is based on 2020 tax tables from USA

neuvoo.com

Someone making a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates around nine times more federal income tax revenue: $1,618.00


View attachment 423459

With a $15 minimum, 52 weeks x 40 hours a week = $31,200.

A single earner, the first $9,875 taxed at 10% = $987.50.
The rest, $21,325, taxed at 12% = $2,559. Total = $3,546.50

The employer deducts $31,200 reducing taxes by $6,552 (21% rate).

We are quibbling what it means to small and local business in a local economy, as it relates to the general Government.

One full time fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage worker providing full time labor input to the economy generates nine times more in federal income tax than that same individual person does at the current minimum wage. A nine to one ratio. We don't need low skill minimum wage jobs that can be easily automated in modern times.

We are quibbling

Showing your math error is not quibbling.

generates nine times more in federal income tax

And the increase is less than the decrease in corporate income tax revenues.

Not my math error. An employer can lay off eight people and still provide the general Government with more tax revenue from one full time person at the higher rate. Higher ratios make your position even less credible.

On a per year basis, individual and total population basis:

from current minimum wage labor at 7.25	19,380	31,008,000,000
from fifteen dollar an hour wage labor	185,200	296,320,000,000

So to pay for the one well paid employee, you would put eight people out of work? How do you suppose they will live?

More tax revenue means we can afford to solve simple poverty via UC.

UC will never solve simple poverty, and it was never meant to do so. That is what welfare (and other programs) are meant to do.

Why not? It is the most cost effective solution. Coincidence or conspiracy?

No, it is not the most cost effective solution. Plus, UC involves taking money from your last employer. How long should they have to pay you for not working?

UC is for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is temporary. It may be extended during more difficult times. But it is not open ended.

A simple re-adjustment could make that tax burden more equitable. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is an externality to the private sector and providing for the general health and safety is a State obligation.

The "simple re-adjustment" you want is to make the UC program into the welfare program. Why duplicate the programs when their intended purpose is not the same?

UC is not welfare because it actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

And it does so for a temporary period of time while the worker searches for another job. You want UC to be unending with no job searching involved.

Employers are not required to hire anyone, not even in alleged Right to Work States. Equal protection of the laws.

No, they are not required to hire anyone. But they WILL hire someone with the skills they need to run a profitable business.

Why is Labor required to have a work ethic that has the effect of depression wages instead of engendering an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional manner?

Why do you expect other to work to pay you for doing nothing at all?

Employment is at the will of either party. Capitalists can always raise the wage if they are upset Labor doesn't want to work Cheap in our first world economy.

Increasing wages because someone does not want to work is counter-productive.

You achieve wage increases by becoming more valuable to your employer. You are not paid based on your need. You are paid based on what you offer in exchange for the pay.

 

[danielpalos]

Care to cite your reasoning?

It's called math. 21% is more than 12%.

The federal income tax is more graduated than that.

You're talking about people making minimum wage.
They'd be taxed, at most, 12%.

Show us, right wingers:

Income Tax Calculator - USA - Salary After Taxes

neuvoo™ 【 Online Salary and Tax Calculator 】 provides your income after tax if you work in USA. We calculate how much your payroll will be after tax deductions in any region. Find your net pay for any salary. Our data is based on 2020 tax tables from USA

neuvoo.com

Someone making a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates around nine times more federal income tax revenue: $1,618.00


View attachment 423459

With a $15 minimum, 52 weeks x 40 hours a week = $31,200.

A single earner, the first $9,875 taxed at 10% = $987.50.
The rest, $21,325, taxed at 12% = $2,559. Total = $3,546.50

The employer deducts $31,200 reducing taxes by $6,552 (21% rate).

We are quibbling what it means to small and local business in a local economy, as it relates to the general Government.

One full time fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage worker providing full time labor input to the economy generates nine times more in federal income tax than that same individual person does at the current minimum wage. A nine to one ratio. We don't need low skill minimum wage jobs that can be easily automated in modern times.

We are quibbling

Showing your math error is not quibbling.

generates nine times more in federal income tax

And the increase is less than the decrease in corporate income tax revenues.

Not my math error. An employer can lay off eight people and still provide the general Government with more tax revenue from one full time person at the higher rate. Higher ratios make your position even less credible.

On a per year basis, individual and total population basis:

from current minimum wage labor at 7.25	19,380	31,008,000,000
from fifteen dollar an hour wage labor	185,200	296,320,000,000

So to pay for the one well paid employee, you would put eight people out of work? How do you suppose they will live?

More tax revenue means we can afford to solve simple poverty via UC.

UC will never solve simple poverty, and it was never meant to do so. That is what welfare (and other programs) are meant to do.

Why not? It is the most cost effective solution. Coincidence or conspiracy?

No, it is not the most cost effective solution. Plus, UC involves taking money from your last employer. How long should they have to pay you for not working?

UC is for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is temporary. It may be extended during more difficult times. But it is not open ended.

A simple re-adjustment could make that tax burden more equitable. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is an externality to the private sector and providing for the general health and safety is a State obligation.

The "simple re-adjustment" you want is to make the UC program into the welfare program. Why duplicate the programs when their intended purpose is not the same?

UC is not welfare because it actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

And it does so for a temporary period of time while the worker searches for another job. You want UC to be unending with no job searching involved.

Employers are not required to hire anyone, not even in alleged Right to Work States. Equal protection of the laws.

No, they are not required to hire anyone. But they WILL hire someone with the skills they need to run a profitable business.

Why is Labor required to have a work ethic that has the effect of depression wages instead of engendering an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional manner?

Why do you expect other to work to pay you for doing nothing at all?

Employment is at the will of either party. Capitalists can always raise the wage if they are upset Labor doesn't want to work Cheap in our first world economy.

Increasing wages because someone does not want to work is counter-productive.

You achieve wage increases by becoming more valuable to your employer. You are not paid based on your need. You are paid based on what you offer in exchange for the pay.

You miss the point about supply and demand.

 

[danielpalos]

I see the point. You miss the point that UC is partly paid for by the employee. There is nothing that the "re-adjusted" UC will provide that welfare does not already provide.

That can be changed. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a State concern not a private sector concern.

And the state answers that with welfare and other social programs.

And there is no need to "re-adjust" a program so that it can do exactly what an existing program already does.

UC at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour is much more effective at automatic stabilization and multiplier effect.

No it is not. That is an outright lie.

Show a link that proves that.

UC is an automatic stabilizer.

 

[WinterBorn]

Care to cite your reasoning?

It's called math. 21% is more than 12%.

The federal income tax is more graduated than that.

You're talking about people making minimum wage.
They'd be taxed, at most, 12%.

Show us, right wingers:

Income Tax Calculator - USA - Salary After Taxes

neuvoo™ 【 Online Salary and Tax Calculator 】 provides your income after tax if you work in USA. We calculate how much your payroll will be after tax deductions in any region. Find your net pay for any salary. Our data is based on 2020 tax tables from USA

neuvoo.com

Someone making a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates around nine times more federal income tax revenue: $1,618.00


View attachment 423459

With a $15 minimum, 52 weeks x 40 hours a week = $31,200.

A single earner, the first $9,875 taxed at 10% = $987.50.
The rest, $21,325, taxed at 12% = $2,559. Total = $3,546.50

The employer deducts $31,200 reducing taxes by $6,552 (21% rate).

We are quibbling what it means to small and local business in a local economy, as it relates to the general Government.

One full time fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage worker providing full time labor input to the economy generates nine times more in federal income tax than that same individual person does at the current minimum wage. A nine to one ratio. We don't need low skill minimum wage jobs that can be easily automated in modern times.

We are quibbling

Showing your math error is not quibbling.

generates nine times more in federal income tax

And the increase is less than the decrease in corporate income tax revenues.

Not my math error. An employer can lay off eight people and still provide the general Government with more tax revenue from one full time person at the higher rate. Higher ratios make your position even less credible.

On a per year basis, individual and total population basis:

from current minimum wage labor at 7.25	19,380	31,008,000,000
from fifteen dollar an hour wage labor	185,200	296,320,000,000

So to pay for the one well paid employee, you would put eight people out of work? How do you suppose they will live?

More tax revenue means we can afford to solve simple poverty via UC.

UC will never solve simple poverty, and it was never meant to do so. That is what welfare (and other programs) are meant to do.

Why not? It is the most cost effective solution. Coincidence or conspiracy?

No, it is not the most cost effective solution. Plus, UC involves taking money from your last employer. How long should they have to pay you for not working?

UC is for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is temporary. It may be extended during more difficult times. But it is not open ended.

A simple re-adjustment could make that tax burden more equitable. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is an externality to the private sector and providing for the general health and safety is a State obligation.

The "simple re-adjustment" you want is to make the UC program into the welfare program. Why duplicate the programs when their intended purpose is not the same?

UC is not welfare because it actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

And it does so for a temporary period of time while the worker searches for another job. You want UC to be unending with no job searching involved.

Employers are not required to hire anyone, not even in alleged Right to Work States. Equal protection of the laws.

No, they are not required to hire anyone. But they WILL hire someone with the skills they need to run a profitable business.

Why is Labor required to have a work ethic that has the effect of depression wages instead of engendering an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional manner?

Why do you expect other to work to pay you for doing nothing at all?

Employment is at the will of either party. Capitalists can always raise the wage if they are upset Labor doesn't want to work Cheap in our first world economy.

Increasing wages because someone does not want to work is counter-productive.

You achieve wage increases by becoming more valuable to your employer. You are not paid based on your need. You are paid based on what you offer in exchange for the pay.

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

 

[WinterBorn]

Care to cite your reasoning?

It's called math. 21% is more than 12%.

The federal income tax is more graduated than that.

You're talking about people making minimum wage.
They'd be taxed, at most, 12%.

Show us, right wingers:

Income Tax Calculator - USA - Salary After Taxes

neuvoo™ 【 Online Salary and Tax Calculator 】 provides your income after tax if you work in USA. We calculate how much your payroll will be after tax deductions in any region. Find your net pay for any salary. Our data is based on 2020 tax tables from USA

neuvoo.com

Someone making a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates around nine times more federal income tax revenue: $1,618.00


View attachment 423459

With a $15 minimum, 52 weeks x 40 hours a week = $31,200.

A single earner, the first $9,875 taxed at 10% = $987.50.
The rest, $21,325, taxed at 12% = $2,559. Total = $3,546.50

The employer deducts $31,200 reducing taxes by $6,552 (21% rate).

We are quibbling what it means to small and local business in a local economy, as it relates to the general Government.

One full time fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage worker providing full time labor input to the economy generates nine times more in federal income tax than that same individual person does at the current minimum wage. A nine to one ratio. We don't need low skill minimum wage jobs that can be easily automated in modern times.

We are quibbling

Showing your math error is not quibbling.

generates nine times more in federal income tax

And the increase is less than the decrease in corporate income tax revenues.

Not my math error. An employer can lay off eight people and still provide the general Government with more tax revenue from one full time person at the higher rate. Higher ratios make your position even less credible.

On a per year basis, individual and total population basis:

from current minimum wage labor at 7.25	19,380	31,008,000,000
from fifteen dollar an hour wage labor	185,200	296,320,000,000

So to pay for the one well paid employee, you would put eight people out of work? How do you suppose they will live?

More tax revenue means we can afford to solve simple poverty via UC.

UC will never solve simple poverty, and it was never meant to do so. That is what welfare (and other programs) are meant to do.

Why not? It is the most cost effective solution. Coincidence or conspiracy?

No, it is not the most cost effective solution. Plus, UC involves taking money from your last employer. How long should they have to pay you for not working?

UC is for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is temporary. It may be extended during more difficult times. But it is not open ended.

A simple re-adjustment could make that tax burden more equitable. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is an externality to the private sector and providing for the general health and safety is a State obligation.

The "simple re-adjustment" you want is to make the UC program into the welfare program. Why duplicate the programs when their intended purpose is not the same?

UC is not welfare because it actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

And it does so for a temporary period of time while the worker searches for another job. You want UC to be unending with no job searching involved.

Employers are not required to hire anyone, not even in alleged Right to Work States. Equal protection of the laws.

No, they are not required to hire anyone. But they WILL hire someone with the skills they need to run a profitable business.

Why is Labor required to have a work ethic that has the effect of depression wages instead of engendering an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional manner?

Why do you expect other to work to pay you for doing nothing at all?

Employment is at the will of either party. Capitalists can always raise the wage if they are upset Labor doesn't want to work Cheap in our first world economy.

Increasing wages because someone does not want to work is counter-productive.

You achieve wage increases by becoming more valuable to your employer. You are not paid based on your need. You are paid based on what you offer in exchange for the pay.

You miss the point about supply and demand.

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see the point. You miss the point that UC is partly paid for by the employee. There is nothing that the "re-adjusted" UC will provide that welfare does not already provide.

That can be changed. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a State concern not a private sector concern.

And the state answers that with welfare and other social programs.

And there is no need to "re-adjust" a program so that it can do exactly what an existing program already does.

UC at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour is much more effective at automatic stabilization and multiplier effect.

No it is not. That is an outright lie.

Show a link that proves that.

UC is an automatic stabilizer.

It is a stabilizer precisely because of the way it is setup. If you change it into welfare, it will be no more of an automatic stabilizer than welfare currently is.

Why would you mess up a program that works, just to make it over into one that already exists? What would your version of UC offer that welfare does not?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

 

[danielpalos]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

 

[danielpalos]

I see the point. You miss the point that UC is partly paid for by the employee. There is nothing that the "re-adjusted" UC will provide that welfare does not already provide.

That can be changed. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a State concern not a private sector concern.

And the state answers that with welfare and other social programs.

And there is no need to "re-adjust" a program so that it can do exactly what an existing program already does.

UC at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour is much more effective at automatic stabilization and multiplier effect.

No it is not. That is an outright lie.

Show a link that proves that.

UC is an automatic stabilizer.

It is a stabilizer precisely because of the way it is setup. If you change it into welfare, it will be no more of an automatic stabilizer than welfare currently is.

Why would you mess up a program that works, just to make it over into one that already exists? What would your version of UC offer that welfare does not?

That is your right wing fantasy with no basis in reality. UC can solve for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Think about it before you reply.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see the point. You miss the point that UC is partly paid for by the employee. There is nothing that the "re-adjusted" UC will provide that welfare does not already provide.

That can be changed. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a State concern not a private sector concern.

And the state answers that with welfare and other social programs.

And there is no need to "re-adjust" a program so that it can do exactly what an existing program already does.

UC at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour is much more effective at automatic stabilization and multiplier effect.

No it is not. That is an outright lie.

Show a link that proves that.

UC is an automatic stabilizer.

It is a stabilizer precisely because of the way it is setup. If you change it into welfare, it will be no more of an automatic stabilizer than welfare currently is.

Why would you mess up a program that works, just to make it over into one that already exists? What would your version of UC offer that welfare does not?

That is your right wing fantasy with no basis in reality. UC can solve for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Think about it before you reply.

All you are doing is trying to remake UC into welfare. No, UC cannot solve simple poverty, because the program costs more for what benefits it provides.

Welfare is more efficient. If you refuse to work, you should apply for welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

 

[danielpalos]

All you are doing is trying to remake UC into welfare. No, UC cannot solve simple poverty, because the program costs more for what benefits it provides.

Welfare is more efficient. If you refuse to work, you should apply for welfare.

You are confused. Means tested welfare is a social safety net not a capital safety net like UC can be, with equal protection of the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.