Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[SAYIT]

Those tax breaks would be replaced by income tax from more people employed and people making more. Also the welfare bill would go down because there are more people employed.

Without more jobs for people to go to wages aren't going to increase. And like I said politically nobody would dare to cut welfare.

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q]Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube[/ame]

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages... In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

Woo ... you are sounding like a Reagan "trickle down" economist. Now you're thinking!

 

[Papageorgio]

His skills, he runs a business, organizes, leads a group of people to produce a product or service, has invested many years, and tons of money to make it work, he produces jobs, he works in the confines of a massive government bureaucracy that forces him to collect taxes. He probably has contracted lawyers, CPA's and others to make sure he is compliant with laws. He probably has his business on his mind 24/7 and worries what the next law will be, how can he keep his business relevant in an ever changing world of competition.

That would be a small part of what most business owners need.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

I'll fix that for you: He sits behind a desk, points fingers, yells at a group of people to produce a product or service, has wasted many years, and tons of his unlimited supply of bourgeois scum money to make it work, he produces "jobs" for unwitting wage slaves, he works alongside a helpful government bureaucracy that doesn't force him to do anything other than keep track of who he pays what amounts. I'll skip your next few lines, as they can be summed up as thus: "Probably probably probably."

Business owners are lazy scumbags that are unable to do anything for themselves so they leech off of society by taking advantage of wage slaves desperate for some form of income they can use to support their families. Capitalists are the real welfare queens.

All it would take to end corporate welfare is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and to do this we need only revoke a business owner's access to the company's funds. Let him get paid as a regular, rank and file employee of his own business, and let's see how long it takes before he makes the living wage a reality.

Yeah I risked everything I had to start this business. If it failed my wife and I would have been living in our car.

For a year we slept on an air mattress in the reception area got up and put it away every morning before we opened.

We did that because we had to gut the entire second floor of the building in order to bring it up to code for the apartment over the business that we planned to live in.

So a basic day was get up at 5 get the business ready to open work all day then at night we did all the work to bring the building up to code usually until the wee hours of the morning. We lived on PB and J and take out because we didn't have a kitchen, took showers at a friend's house or used the hose because we had no plumbing upstairs and no shower in the business.

You don't know Jack shit about what it took for us to open our business.

In the past 7 years we have reinvested 300K back into the business and increased our staff from 6 to 11 people.

After all this and living ina smll apartment for the past 7 years my wife and I are finally building a house onthe lot next to the business and people like you have the balls to say to us shit like this


" Oh gee I guess I know where all the money you charge me is going"

Or

" it must be nice to have other people pay for your new house"

But I guess just because I own a business I'm not supposed to have a home when the very people who say this shit all have houses of their own and drive newer more expensive cars than I do.

So you can go **** yourself because I got what I got because I risked everything to get it.

Look at the hours and work you put in to make it work. Guys like zeke can't even imagine the time, money and sacrifice it takes to start a business. Zeke just a selfish dumbshit employee and will never be anything more.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[alan1]

If wage demands outstrip their value to companies, prices either must rise (pricing the employees out of the consumer market again) or the company must fold, thus ending all the job opportunities. Just as companies must price their products and services to the market competitively, so must workers price their product to the firm ... their labor.

And that is something very important, yet many fail to see it.
I know what my labor is worth. I won't work for less than I am worth, and just as important, I won't let some union negotiate my salary (essentially deciding what my labor is worth).

 

[SAYIT]

If wage demands outstrip their value to companies, prices either must rise (pricing the employees out of the consumer market again) or the company must fold, thus ending all the job opportunities. Just as companies must price their products and services to the market competitively, so must workers price their product to the firm ... their labor.

And that is something very important, yet many fail to see it.
I know what my labor is worth. I won't work for less than I am worth, and just as important, I won't let some union negotiate my salary (essentially deciding what my labor is worth).

When my biz was new I had some years in which I earned far less than I was worth. Many sacrifice the short term gains for long term wins. I understood that.
Now the socialists want to change the rules and have Uncle Sam confiscate my rewards for their benefit.

 

[Brain357]

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages. Companies like GE already pay 0 taxes.

Welfare would go down because more and better paying jobs would be available. Right now people are working at Walmart and still collecting welfare. That would be eliminated if these people were paid more. In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

No, the Waltons win as does GE.

This is nothing more than cost shifting.

Why is that? Companies get to pay less taxes and workers get better wages and benefits. Seems like a win/win to me.

 

[Brain357]

Gawd, no.


I'd work harder and make more money. What would you do?

That doesn't sound like a plan at all. I've been working hard for many years yet it stays stagnant.

It's good to work hard but better to work smart. Try it.

It doesn't matter how I work. Its not going to help this stagnant economy.

 

[Brain357]

Walmart started with a single store. Sears started as a part time job for for Richard Sears. Family Dollar started as a single store. Target started as a single store. Whole Foods started as a single store.
So yeah, anyone has the money to start a super store.

And after than I'll get into fast food. Then maybe this mess with be fixed in a few generations. No I think some policy changes will work a bit faster.

Are you the President of the United States, the House Majority Leader, or the Senate Majority Leader?
If you are none of the above, I seriously doubt you can enact policy change at a federal level. But then, you are the self-proclaimed brain, so go for it.

No I am not. But I'm smart enough to know what would help and what wouldn't.

 

[Brain357]

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages. Companies like GE already pay 0 taxes and it's not for incentives to create jobs or pay higher wages. I would wipe out the current corporate taxes and replace them. If GE wants to still pay 0 they better be paying good wages.

Welfare would go down because more and better paying jobs would be available. Right now people are working at Walmart and still collecting welfare. That would be eliminated if these people were paid more. In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

The easiest way to eliminate people collecting welfare would be to eliminate welfare altogether.
Yes, it is that simple.

And like I said before, you won't find a politician who will do that. So it's really not any option at all is it?

If you did that the economy would slow even more.

 

[Brain357]

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages... In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

Woo ... you are sounding like a Reagan "trickle down" economist. Now you're thinking!

I used to be a believer in trickle down. Then I saw it doesn't work. See that theory says give tax breaks to the rich with no strings attached and it will trickle down to the poor. What I'm saying is there are strings attached. If a company wants to pay lower taxes then they need to pay employees well. If a company wants to pay poorly then they pay lots of taxes to cover all the welfare their employees will be collecting.

 

[SAYIT]

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages... In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

Woo ... you are sounding like a Reagan "trickle down" economist. Now you're thinking!

I used to be a believer in trickle down. Then I saw it doesn't work. See that theory says give tax breaks to the rich with no strings attached and it will trickle down to the poor. What I'm saying is there are strings attached. If a company wants to pay lower taxes then they need to pay employees well. If a company wants to pay poorly then they pay lots of taxes to cover all the welfare their employees will be collecting.

Are you not proposing that the gov't give tax breaks to corps so they can pay their peeps more money? That sounds like classic trickle-down to me.

 

[Brain357]

Woo ... you are sounding like a Reagan "trickle down" economist. Now you're thinking!

I used to be a believer in trickle down. Then I saw it doesn't work. See that theory says give tax breaks to the rich with no strings attached and it will trickle down to the poor. What I'm saying is there are strings attached. If a company wants to pay lower taxes then they need to pay employees well. If a company wants to pay poorly then they pay lots of taxes to cover all the welfare their employees will be collecting.

Are you not proposing that the gov't give tax breaks to corps so they can pay their peeps more money? That sounds like classic trickle-down to me.

Again I'm not saying just give tax breaks and hope that's what they do with it. That is trickle down and it doesn't work. I'm saying wipe the current corporate taxes out and start new. You start with some percent and subtract from that based on criteria including wages and benefits. So if a company is paying it's lowest paid worker a living wage that is a tax break. If every employee gets health insurance that is a tax break. This way if a company pays little or nothing in taxes they are also paying employees well. It would be like trickle down, but it would actually work.

 

[Interpol]

Trickle Down was based on the hope that if we ease the tax burdens of corporations and small businesses, that they'll take the savings and grow their businesses, invest in American jobs which in turn invest in our economy.

All empirical data has shown that it failed to do any of those things.

I don't think it's liberal or conservative to correct that mistake: it's common sense.

Ronald Reagan's first two years in office were hard for him because he drastically reduced revenue while his base was dead set against cutting services they themselves were paying into. So he raised taxes numerous times and tax revenue as a percentage of GDP went back up from the mid teens to almost 20%.

Right now, tax revenues are 15% of GDP and we see that our growth is slower than we'd like it to be. Under Reagan and Clinton, in their boom times, it was up at around an 18% average.

I think it's a win-win for everybody if we repeal certain tax loopholes and create a billionaires tax and then lift the minimum wage. We would spend less on welfare programs because people could better govern their lives, people would spend that money directly into the economy, and that's how growth happens.

Calling that liberal is just stupid because it's been a tried and true method for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

 

[Ernie S.]

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

What is stopping you from creating your own company that pays people better than WalMart and takes over WalMart's market share?
You got a problem with WalMart wages, feel free to drive them out of business with your better business model.

Sure just anyone has the money to start super stores. Right.

Do you really think the Waltons decided one day to hire a few million people and build a couple thousand stores?. Start one store and make it super. IF you have the right business plan, in a hundred years or so, you may be as wealthy as those people who invested their savings and worked their asses off to provide for their families.
Until then, keep your grubby fingers out of my pockets.

 

[Ernie S.]

Those tax breaks would be replaced by income tax from more people employed and people making more. Also the welfare bill would go down because there are more people employed.

Without more jobs for people to go to wages aren't going to increase. And like I said politically nobody would dare to cut welfare.

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q]Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube[/ame]

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages. Companies like GE already pay 0 taxes and it's not for incentives to create jobs or pay higher wages. I would wipe out the current corporate taxes and replace them. If GE wants to still pay 0 they better be paying good wages.

Welfare would go down because more and better paying jobs would be available. Right now people are working at Walmart and still collecting welfare. That would be eliminated if these people were paid more. In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

You do realize that without spending cuts, any tax breaks to corporations will need to be offset by higher taxes on someone else, don't you?

Exactly WHO do you think should foot that bill?

 

[zeke]

Not that it's any of your business but I allow it because it benefits me. In fact she is the one employee I would love to let go but she really has not done anything to warrant firing her and I don't want to have to pay the unemployment claim.

What does she do? Let you bang her in the break room? LMAO. Or head jobs under your desk?

When I was an employee, you could be fired for not working the hours scheduled. Unemployment be damned. You need a person there to do the work or you don't. You run a welfare agency?
Must have been Obama that changed that eh?.

I think you are slinging bullshit now skull.

But I noticed that you can't describe the business that you have poured your life into in even the most simply way. You ashamed or what?

What kind of ******* business do you have?

I work with my wife you moron and this particular employee is married to a friend of mine so why don't you grow up?

It's obvious you don't understand the concept that firing her would be more expensive than keeping her on.

First you say I don't treat my employees well enough and that I just must be mistreating them because I own a business and now you say I'm not enough of a hard ass.

Make up your ******* mind.

So you run a social welfare agency with your wife and your friends wife. Well alrighty then.
That explains just about everything.........except what is it that you DO?

And quit with the bullshit about how unemployment is so much more expensive than putting up with a worker that won't work the hours and do the job they were hired for.

Unless you gave the job and the income to this friends wife because they are your friends.

Not a very good example of personnel management from a business owner. But hey, you are the only one I know who claims you know what the **** you are doing.

Are all your employee's your "friends" and get to work what ever hours they choose? Or do you discriminate against them because they are not your friends wife and threaten to fire them if they don't work the hours scheduled? Just curious.

 

[zeke]

Not that it's any of your business but I allow it because it benefits me. In fact she is the one employee I would love to let go but she really has not done anything to warrant firing her and I don't want to have to pay the unemployment claim.

What does she do? Let you bang her in the break room? LMAO. Or head jobs under your desk?

When I was an employee, you could be fired for not working the hours scheduled. Unemployment be damned. You need a person there to do the work or you don't. You run a welfare agency?
Must have been Obama that changed that eh?.

I think you are slinging bullshit now skull.

But I noticed that you can't describe the business that you have poured your life into in even the most simply way. You ashamed or what?

What kind of ******* business do you have?

I work with my wife you moron and this particular employee is married to a friend of mine so why don't you grow up?

It's obvious you don't understand the concept that firing her would be more expensive than keeping her on.

First you say I don't treat my employees well enough and that I just must be mistreating them because I own a business and now you say I'm not enough of a hard ass.

Make up your ******* mind.

First I didn't say anything about how you treat your employees one way or another.
You are making shit up or lying. I asked how you determined how much you pay them and that you do pay them a living wage. And I determined this by the fact you never answered whether or not your employees work part time jobs or get food stamps. So I figured they get by on what they earn with you. As it should be.

But...

You didn't seem to know what kind of shape your hourly workers are in. Except for your friends wife. And she complains about how she doesn't make enough money. But if she would only work the hours she should, all would be good. According to you.

No usually when you have a small company with long term employees (as you say you have) those business owners know a great deal about their employees.

But not you eh?

 

[JoeB131]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.


Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

Here's the thing. They don't have 'paper routes' anymore.

Most newspapers are delivered by adults with a car, for the few people who still read newspapers.

 

[Brain357]

What is stopping you from creating your own company that pays people better than WalMart and takes over WalMart's market share?
You got a problem with WalMart wages, feel free to drive them out of business with your better business model.

Sure just anyone has the money to start super stores. Right.

Do you really think the Waltons decided one day to hire a few million people and build a couple thousand stores?. Start one store and make it super. IF you have the right business plan, in a hundred years or so, you may be as wealthy as those people who invested their savings and worked their asses off to provide for their families.
Until then, keep your grubby fingers out of my pockets.

The Waltons are already in your pockets. They should be taking care of their employees, but instead the tax payer gets the bill. What I have suggested would get them out of your pocket.

 

[Brain357]

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages. Companies like GE already pay 0 taxes and it's not for incentives to create jobs or pay higher wages. I would wipe out the current corporate taxes and replace them. If GE wants to still pay 0 they better be paying good wages.

Welfare would go down because more and better paying jobs would be available. Right now people are working at Walmart and still collecting welfare. That would be eliminated if these people were paid more. In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

You do realize that without spending cuts, any tax breaks to corporations will need to be offset by higher taxes on someone else, don't you?

Exactly WHO do you think should foot that bill?

The spending cuts will be fewer people on welfare. And with more people working and making higher wages they will be paying more in taxes so that will also counter the tax breaks. This will just be cutting out the government and putting the money right into the hands of the worker. This will also spark the economy as people will have more money to spend.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What does she do? Let you bang her in the break room? LMAO. Or head jobs under your desk?

When I was an employee, you could be fired for not working the hours scheduled. Unemployment be damned. You need a person there to do the work or you don't. You run a welfare agency?
Must have been Obama that changed that eh?.

I think you are slinging bullshit now skull.

But I noticed that you can't describe the business that you have poured your life into in even the most simply way. You ashamed or what?

What kind of ******* business do you have?

I work with my wife you moron and this particular employee is married to a friend of mine so why don't you grow up?

It's obvious you don't understand the concept that firing her would be more expensive than keeping her on.

First you say I don't treat my employees well enough and that I just must be mistreating them because I own a business and now you say I'm not enough of a hard ass.

Make up your ******* mind.

So you run a social welfare agency with your wife and your friends wife. Well alrighty then.
That explains just about everything.........except what is it that you DO?

FYI my friend met her after we started the business not before. Now you might be the kind of guy that steps out on his wife and messes around with the wife of a friend but I'm not.

And quit with the bullshit about how unemployment is so much more expensive than putting up with a worker that won't work the hours and do the job they were hired for.

It's really none of your business and it doesn't affect my bottom line so really I don't give a flying **** what you think.

Unless you gave the job and the income to this friends wife because they are your friends.

See above

Not a very good example of personnel management from a business owner. But hey, you are the only one I know who claims you know what the **** you are doing.

Where did I ever claim that?

Are all your employee's your "friends" and get to work what ever hours they choose? Or do you discriminate against them because they are not your friends wife and threaten to fire them if they don't work the hours scheduled? Just curious.

No I have very little involvement with my employees outside of work and the few company gatherings we sponsor. And if you must know I have not had much contact socially with an old friend of mine because he's married to one of my employees because I do not think it's prudent to be socially involved with my employees.

One thing about owning a business that you couldn't possibly understand is that the major hassles are not the customers or the work it's the employees and sometimes you have to weigh the entire gestalt of the team before making any decisions.

So until you have experience with that don't tell me how to run my business because quite frankly it's none of yours.