How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare isn't in the Constitution.

Neither is funding the general welfare. But you can't tell them that.....

nothing but right wing fantasy, is all the right wing, really has.

There is nothing fantasy about what the US Constitution says. It's in plain English.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe, but what's more likely to happen is as the minimum wage increases, it makes automation investments more attractive to businesses. When it's cheaper to buy machines to do the work instead of humans, that's what industry will turn to. After all, most of our manufacturing jobs were not lost overseas,, they were lost to automation.

if they want to use machines they will regardless of a small bump in pay.

What you have to understand is that it's not a small bump in pay.

When your employer give you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him or her much more than that dollar. Your employer has to match your Medicare and SS contributions. A raise increases your contributions (and your employers). Your employers workman's compensation insurance gets more expensive because if you get hurt on the job, it's more money they have to pay you since you make more money. Same with Unemployment insurance. Then there is vacation and holiday pay. That's when your employer pays you and gets nothing in return.

So now you take that and multiply it by X amount of employees, and it's a very large expense for the employer. I won't even get into the healthcare thing or if you have a retirement plan with your employer that he contributes to.

Gee Ray, thanks, for "mansplaining" that for us. Except that you're wrong.

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

So the cost to the employer is NOT more than $1.00. In fact, if the employer is paying the full corporate rate of 35% income tax on profit, that raise is only going to cost the employer $0.65 per hour.

So it is completely false to say that a $1 an hour raise costs an employer more than $1 per hour per employee.

No because a write-off is not that much. A write-off only means you don't pay taxes on that money because you used it to run your business.

I have over a hundred write-offs every year, and it helps, but many think a write-off means that the government gives you that money back. Nothing is further from the truth; I wish it was. So an employer may get something back for all is new costs, but again, it's not all that much, especially when you compare that to the expense.

Ray, I'm finding it really hard to believe you own a business at all. Your ignorance is astounding. No one suggested that you get a refund on your deductions. That would be assinine. Companies don't get refunds on expenses, and only someone who doesn't work in business would even suggest this was a possibility.

I worked my entire career in law and banking Ray. I know how it works. You deduct ALL OF YOUR EXPENSES related to your employees from your revenues, and you pay tax on the profit. Every dollar of deductions, reduces your corporate tax payable by 35%.

If you give your employee a $1.00 an hour raise, that $1 comes out of profits, and is not taxable. Had you not given the raise, you would have paid 35 cents of that $1 to the government in taxes, so you would have only kept 65 cents of that $1.00 for yourself anyway. So you reduce your taxes by 35 cents, add your 65 cents to it and give your employee a $1.00 an hour raise.

Hope that notion isn't too complicated for your simple little mind.

You think all businesses are taxed at 35%? I certainly am not and I bet a lot of folks aren't either.

But let's use your scenario for a moment. If you really believe what you say, why doesn't a business give each employee a $5.00 an hour raise since government is actually paying for it? Why not a $10.00 an hour raise? Maybe $15.00 an hour raise?

 

[danielpalos]

dear, the general welfare is not the specific welfare; just like the common defense is not the common offense nor the general warfare.

Yes it is. The General Welfare is specific to the 18 enumerated powers only. That is abundantly clear - both in the document and in Thomas Jefferson's own words (and I think the 3rd President of the United States, the 1st Secretary of State, and the man who penned the Declaration of Independence knows just a little bit more about the U.S. Constitution than you do).

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power; providing for the common defense is not a general power to provide for the common offense, nor general warfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Madison applies to your warfare-State economy.

Marbury v. Madison has nothing to do with any of this...

lol. Raising money for the general welfare, is in our social Contract.

 

[danielpalos]

A welfare-State economy is specifically enumerated.

It doesn't say "economy" anywhere, snowflake. You're desperate to support the welfare-state that you selfishly desire.

Here's the thing - if the "General Welfare" is not limited to the 18 enumerated powers (and it most definitely is), then the federal government has unlimited powers. Which means, if the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House decided tomorrow that it would "promote the general welfare" of the United States to execute all Democrats (and it would), then they would have the power to do so. Do you agree that they have the constitutional authority to execute you and all of your fellow left-wing hatriots? It's a simple question Daniel.

Don't get frustratred; get educated

We have a Commerce Clause; providing for the common defense is not a power to provide for the common offense, nor the general warfare.

 

[P@triot]

party economics is simple.

Party economics is simple...Detroit had to file bankruptcy after 65 years of complete utopian control by which party? The Democrats!

California is somewhere between $400 billion and $2 trillion in debt after control by which party? The Democrats!

That's due to workers not making enough money.

Uh.....no. That's due to failed left-wing soclialist policy.

 

[danielpalos]

party economics is simple.

Party economics is simple...Detroit had to file bankruptcy after 65 years of complete utopian control by which party? The Democrats!

California is somewhere between $400 billion and $2 trillion in debt after control by which party? The Democrats!

That's due to workers not making enough money.

Uh.....no. That's due to failed left-wing soclialist policy.

Left wing policy ended our drug war in our State; we expect around a billion in revenue.

 

[P@triot]

Madison applies to your warfare-State economy.

Marbury v. Madison has nothing to do with any of this...

lol. Raising money for the general welfare, is in our social Contract.

We don't have a "social contract", snowflake. We have a U.S. Constitution which outlines how our government will function. That document authorizes the government to tax for their 18 enumerated powers. The "General Welfare" applies to those 18 enumerated powers only.

 

[P@triot]

Left wing policy ended our drug war in our State; we expect around a billion in revenue.

Failed left-wing policy is the reason you need a billion in tax revenues from drugs in the first place.

 

[danielpalos]

Madison applies to your warfare-State economy.

Marbury v. Madison has nothing to do with any of this...

lol. Raising money for the general welfare, is in our social Contract.

We don't have a "social contract", snowflake. We have a U.S. Constitution which outlines how our government will function. That document authorizes the government to tax for their 18 enumerated powers. The "General Welfare" applies to those 18 enumerated powers only.

Our federal Constitution is a social Contract. You simply don't understand our federal form of Government, like federalists do.

 

[danielpalos]

Left wing policy ended our drug war in our State; we expect around a billion in revenue.

Failed left-wing policy is the reason you need a billion in tax revenues from drugs in the first place.

Just lousy management. The republicans were just drama queens, with no actual solutions.

 

[P@triot]

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

The kind of absurd ignorance that could only come from a freaking Canadian.

Snowflake - a $1 per hour raise means an extra dollar out of the employers pocket for each and every hours. There is no "write off" on that cost. Then the employer pays an additional pay roll tax - which is obviously increased.

This is why the left has to mooch off of government. They could never run a business. They think when they pay an employee the government reimburses them...

 

[P@triot]

Just lousy management.

Another indicator of left-wing policy...

 

[P@triot]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power...

...within the 18 enumerated powers they explicitly restricted to.

 

[P@triot]

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

So again danielpalos - if the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House passes legislation tomorrow stating that it is in the best interest of the "General Welfare" to execute all left-wing ideologists and supporters - that would be 100% constitutional in your mind? You would agree with it?

Don't get frustrated; get educated

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Madison applies to your warfare-State economy.

Marbury v. Madison has nothing to do with any of this...

lol. Raising money for the general welfare, is in our social Contract.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[P@triot]

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

Taxing for the "General Welfare" within the 18 enumerated powers is what the U.S. Constitution says. Thomas Jefferson further clarified it for everyone...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Don't get frustrated; get educated

 

[Dragonlady]

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

The kind of absurd ignorance that could only come from a freaking Canadian.

Snowflake - a $1 per hour raise means an extra dollar out of the employers pocket for each and every hours. There is no "write off" on that cost. Then the employer pays an additional pay roll tax - which is obviously increased.

This is why the left has to mooch off of government. They could never run a business. They think when they pay an employee the government reimburses them...

An employer writes off every dollar that the employee costs then, including the payroll tax. You have to be willfully ignornant to think that employers are not writing off wages, employer payroll deductions and employee health care.

Look at any set of financial statements for corporations and these are line items.

Better yet, try this:

Can You Write Off the Expense of the Owner's Payroll Tax in a Sole Proprietorship?

A business can write off an employee’s salary and the employer’s portion of the payroll tax payment as business expenses. You can’t write off the salary you pay yourself as a sole proprietor as a business expense because you are not an employee. Instead, your salary is included in the company’s gross income, out of which you can deduct other business expenses. You also can’t deduct the employee half of the self-employment tax you have paid on your federal return, in the same way that an employee can’t deduct the federal payroll taxes that were automatically withdrawn from his check on his federal income tax return.[

I've bolded the relevant provisions.

It is obvious that neither Ray nor Patriot has ever owned a business or employed people. I've done both.

 

[P@triot]

Our federal Constitution is a social Contract. You simply don't understand our federal form of Government, like federalists do.

No. No really - it's not. Allow me to educate again. Here is the definition of "social contract":

so·cial con·tract
noun

1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

So for starters here - a social contract is "implicit" as you can see (bolded in red above). Well, the U.S. Constitution is not "implicit". It is an actual document signed into law.

In addition - a social contract sacrifices freedom (bolded in red above). Well, the U.S. Constitution isn't a document promising to surrender freedoms. Quite the contrary, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land ensuring and protecting liberty.

Don't get frustrated; get educated

 

[P@triot]

An employer writes off every dollar that the employee costs then, including the payroll tax. You have to be willfully ignornant to think that employers are not writing off wages, employer payroll deductions and employee health care.

You poor little snowflake...you're so confused. The government does not reimburse a business for their labor costs. Having tax exemptions only allows them to keep more of their profits - it does not reimburse them for their labor costs.

When they have to pay an employee a $1 more an hour, the government doesn't send them a $1 for each hour for each employee...