If minimum wage were raised ...

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure. 7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493

Anything else?

Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.

Is that the new RWN math?

What?

 

[FA_Q2]

Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.

Correct, income not revenue. The average married couple doesn't have COGS. You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter." No wonder you're a liberal.

but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.

We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....? And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....???? the deduction from our income....??? but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual

And companies are not the same as people nor do they pay taxes in that matter. They should NOT pay taxes in that manner either and nowhere in the world that I know of does such an asinine system exist. They don’t do this because the money that you are so bent on them paying taxes is NOT income – it is money recycled BACK into the company in order to create goods. That is NOT what you do with your money at all. Instead, you expend it on whatever you want at the moment. No creation at all. IF you were creating something to sell, it would be a business AND TAXED in that same manner. Should you decide to create said business, your ‘income’ would be taxed in the same way that Wal-Mart does but first you might actually have to offer something of value.

What you are advocating ensures one thing – the complete collapse of how the market works and businesses ability to exist.

Here is what you are advocating:
Wal-Mart sold 446.95 billion in sales. If you were to tax that figure at 10% (still less than you are demanding but simplifies the math) you end up with a tax burden of 44.7 billion dollars. Wall-Marts actual profits (pre-tax) were 25.7B meaning that Wal-Mart would be running at a net loss of 19B. They either drastically increase prices, fire thousands or more likely both. You want to equate this to a person’s check – it would be like the government deciding that even though you took home 50k last year, you actually owe 100k in taxes because you own a big house.

You have completely misunderstood how taxes actually work to include the fact that you contradicted you OWN source (the one that defines taxes).

 

[FA_Q2]

Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income. Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.

While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010. Don't see much commentary on that.

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News

It might be mostly ignored because it was an actual lie. The article was debunked here a while ago – GE actually did pay taxes that year.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure. 7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493

Anything else?

Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.

Is that the new RWN math?

Actually it is basic math. I understand now why you are so confused if something as simple as division and how numerals are expressed is confusing to you.
Percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough such concepts were used as far back as Rome according to the article. That certainly precludes it from being ‘new.’

 

[Sunshine]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Let’s just say for example that the new “living” minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people’s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.

If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.

Where do you find an HVAC repairman for $15/hour. My last service call was $75 for 15 minutes.

 

[Sunshine]

If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.

Poverty is relative. Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.

Exactly.......

Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.

Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.

Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative. ..

If you are on the bottom rung you are on the bottom until you, yourself, do something to move up. Raising the minimum wage will not get you off the bottom rung. Unless and until you decided to take some action like going to school or getting extra training of some kind to improve your socioeconomic status, you will be on the bottom rung. No matter what. All the other rungs are just going to adjust themselves to the location of the new bottom rung.

I learned that when I did clerical work. But my minimum wage clerical work was better than my mother's minimum wage retail work because I could work sitting down. I got on my feet and off the bottom rung when I became a nurse. Go to Vanderbilt to the hospital. Every nurse there is going to school to be an NP. Just ask them. I found one who wasn't during my first hospitalization and she was a former student of mine. I encouraged her to get more education because one day she will be too old to thump up and down those halls lifting and tugging. I hope she takes the advice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.

Is that the new RWN math?

Actually it is basic math. I understand now why you are so confused if something as simple as division and how numerals are expressed is confusing to you.
Percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough such concepts were used as far back as Rome according to the article. That certainly precludes it from being ‘new.’

That depends on how old you are, doesn't it? Maybe he is a lot older than you think.

 

[Sunshine]

I wish someone could say with certainty, 'this or that would happen.' But we don't know if there would be more jobs or less jobs or just different jobs. We don't know if industry would relocate overseas. Those decisions belong to the people who run the businesses. They will choose to do what is most advantageous for their own business.

One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective. I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week. And I know others who can live on a flat rock.

 

[Dragonlady]

One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective. I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week. And I know others who can live on a flat rock.

While this is true, there is a reasonable standard which is generally applied: the cost of basic housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities.

To argue that people's ability, or lack thereof, to live frugally makes it impossible to know what a living wage would be, is just looking for excuses to do nothing.

It's often said here that if you don't earn enough money to feed your family, you should take a second job. People brag about working two or three jobs to make ends meet, but what kind of parent can you be to a child when you're always working and never at home?

The family values folk always say that women should stay home with their children and not work because raising the next generation is the most important job you'll ever do. Yet poor women are told to take a second and a third job to provide for their families. Who's raising their children?

When my daughter was small, we took her to art galleries, museums, the Science Centre, the ballet, plays - anything that would make for fun outing. There are all sorts if ways of doing this stuff on the cheap. Teachers called this "enrichment" and said she benefitted from it enormously. I called it spending quality time with my child. If I were working 15 hours a day, I wouldn't have had the time or the energy to enrich my child's life.

 

[Care4all]

Correct, income not revenue. The average married couple doesn't have COGS. You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter." No wonder you're a liberal.

but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.

We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....? And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....???? the deduction from our income....??? but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual

And companies are not the same as people nor do they pay taxes in that matter. They should NOT pay taxes in that manner either and nowhere in the world that I know of does such an asinine system exist. They don’t do this because the money that you are so bent on them paying taxes is NOT income – it is money recycled BACK into the company in order to create goods. That is NOT what you do with your money at all. Instead, you expend it on whatever you want at the moment. No creation at all. IF you were creating something to sell, it would be a business AND TAXED in that same manner. Should you decide to create said business, your ‘income’ would be taxed in the same way that Wal-Mart does but first you might actually have to offer something of value.

What you are advocating ensures one thing – the complete collapse of how the market works and businesses ability to exist.

Here is what you are advocating:
Wal-Mart sold 446.95 billion in sales. If you were to tax that figure at 10% (still less than you are demanding but simplifies the math) you end up with a tax burden of 44.7 billion dollars. Wall-Marts actual profits (pre-tax) were 25.7B meaning that Wal-Mart would be running at a net loss of 19B. They either drastically increase prices, fire thousands or more likely both. You want to equate this to a person’s check – it would be like the government deciding that even though you took home 50k last year, you actually owe 100k in taxes because you own a big house.

You have completely misunderstood how taxes actually work to include the fact that you contradicted you OWN source (the one that defines taxes).

I'm not advocating one way or the other on Walmart paying more taxes....I'd rather they pay their own employees more, the ones who actually do the work, and sell and stock and maintain their products so that they CAN sell what they sell and be profitable. Paying employees more is actually TAX FREE for walmart....no?

and as far as taxes, BOTH parties are only suppose to pay taxes on their Profits...the individual is only suppose to pay taxes on their PROFITS, NOT their revenue...and if the gvt thinks that the standard deduction amount is covering operating expense for the average individual using the short form and all the other money is PROFIT, then something ain't right with that standard deduction amount imho....

According to Law, the gvt can only tax individuals on PROFIT as well....

 

[hunarcy]

Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income. Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.

While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010. Don't see much commentary on that.

Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.

In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. In fact, Democrats controlled 26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped. So, you're right, I have my answer.

Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.

 

[OnePercenter]

While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010. Don't see much commentary on that.

Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.

In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. In fact, Democrats controlled 26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped. So, you're right, I have my answer.

Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.

Really?

Meltdown 2008 Timeline

Show us how smart you are.

 

[hunarcy]

Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.

In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. In fact, Democrats controlled 26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped. So, you're right, I have my answer.

Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.

Really?

Meltdown 2008 Timeline

Show us how smart you are.

I look at who controlled Congress when all those things happened and I realize that Democrats took control of Congress, made labor more expensive by passing a hike to the minimum wage and then blamed Republicans as the economy melted down.

 

[Dragonlady]

The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.

The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.

Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.

 

[Kosh]

The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.

The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.

Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.

Far left propaganda.

 

[zeke]

The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.

The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.

Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.

Far left propaganda.

That is a strong rebuttal right there. How long did you think on that response? Days?
Idiot.

Like I've said before; you all are confusing minimum wage with subsistence wages.

Subsistence wage workers are the ones who qualify for government programs to live.
Because they can't "subsist" on the wages they earn.

Minimum wage may be subsistence wages or it may not. You might work for a company as an in experienced, but trained, technical worker. This companies MINIMUM wage for the work to be performed might be 15 bucks an hour. With the prospect of making much more with more experience.

A subsistence wage worker has no reasonable prospects of making much (or any) more than the subsistence wage they were hired in at.

If you are a company hiring subsistence wage workers KNOWING that your workers qualify for and receive government assistance to live, and no one bitches about this, why pay more?

 

[TooTall]

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.

Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income. Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well. And it would be forever, not just a year.

 

[TooTall]

The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.

The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.

Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.

Because the Republican House balanced spending and Clinton reluctantly signed the bills, there was low unemployment, an almost balanced budget and a thriving economy.
The terrorist attack on the WTC, collapse of the dotcom ecomomy, Hurricane Katrina, defense to the US from further attacks and the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq got spending out of control during the Bush Administration.

Even then, we had 6 years of a thriving economy, low unemployment and manageable budget deficits until the Democrats took over in 2006 and did nothing about the housing crisis that eventually took down the economy.

You are correct about it taking years to correct public policy, and the housing policy of selling houses to those who had no possible way of paying for them started under Clinton, and Bush was either unable or unwilling to change the policy. The De mocrats refused to recognize it as a problem, and ignored Bush's warnings of the impending crisis.

If you think 5 trillion added to the national debt under Bush in 8 years is bad, what do you consider 7 trillion under Obama in 5 years? At least the Republican House has lowered the deficit over the past two years, in spite of the Democrat Senate that refuses most of the House budgets.

 

[hunarcy]

The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.

The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.

Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.

Funny. The FACT is that the economy was put in distress by the rise in minimum wage, which caused a cut back in hiring and a constriction of the job market. People began to have trouble paying their mortgages at a time when interest rates began to rise causing ARMs to increase the interest rates people paid, causing even more people to lose their homes and that caused the housing bubble to burst. You can blame it on Bush's tax cuts (which gave people MORE money in their pockets, so how you think that hurt the economy is beyond me) but those are the FACTS.

Now, trot out your impotent arguments to deflect from the Democratic blame...it'll end up being sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Againsheila]

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.

Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income. Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well. And it would be forever, not just a year.

Social Security is suppose to have a COLA.