Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

[boedicca]

On the contrary, our country was stronger, our economy stronger and our income gap much, much smaller when our minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%. Of course there were more taxes being paid by corporations too and yet, the unemployment rate was what? 5%?

This top tax rate of 70% nonsense is pure nonsense. If it raised enormous sums of money, then tax receipts as a % of GDP would have been much higher than when rates were lower. They weren't. The trend line for tax receipts hovers around 18% of GDP.

Back when that rate was in effect, there were deductions and loopholes available which reduced actual effective tax rates.

 

[Wiseacre]

I am always amazed when liberals toss this idea of a living wage around, like there's no consequences. Say you raise the minimum wage up to $20 bucks an hour on average. How many businesses do you think can absorb that extra expense without raising prices bigtime or outsourcing jobs or going out of business? Say they raise prices to cover the higher labor costs, how competitive does that make foreign products here? How attractive will US goods be at a higher price overseas? The day this is tried is the day we enter a depression greater than the one in the 1930s.

Only a conservative would think that liberals want to raise minimum wage to $20 an hour. No one is saying that at all.

You should be taking home no less than $400 a week in a full time, minimum wage job in the US.

I've seen some liberals around here throwing around that number, but in any case I was just using it as an example. So, $400 a week, doesn't that come out to about $12/hr after taxes and all? I take it you are advocating for an increase in the minimum wage law, and are apparently not convinced that an increase of that magnitude would have significant consequences for jobs lost and smaller companies going out of business. Current minimum wage is what, somewhere between $8 and $9 dollars/hr? So you're going to increase labor costs by somewhere between a third to a half more? For businesses that manage to stay open, that has to mean either fewer jobs or higher prices or both. Neither is optimal for economic growth.

 

[ReallyMeow]

This is simply not true in any meaningful sense. Ir ealize you will trot out some chart showing "median household income" and it will demonstrate that you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

FLAAAAAAAT
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just don't understand that logic. Why stifle opportunity for someone just because an arbitrary standard that was unnecessary for them was applied?

You can start and run a business, and take home a decent salary from it; you however cannot freeload off of the infrastructure that made that happen. Pay yourself, 80k? super, keep most of it. pay yourself 100 million dollars? We're taking most of that. You arnt rumplestiltskin, sitting in a barn spinning straw into gold, you used the services we provided, you couldnt have accomplished what you have without them, we have bills to pay, pony up. Dont look at them, they're not rich yet, you were able to get rich because some other rich guy was getting taxed while you skated by and built yourself up.

Either the jobs at that level would disappear or inflation would nullify any gains.

Based on what? Your worthless assertion? You're really so stupid that you think people go out of their way to spend all of their extra money on food? the kids need braces, the cars making a weird sound, it sure would be nice to have life insurance etc, but no you regard Americans as having the mental capacity of a betta fish.

If one guy is an MD and makes $500K and one guy is a burger flipper and makes minimum the message is clear. Get a better job, make a greater contribution to society,

He is contributing, you sniveling pussbag, if he wernt needed the business would keep that $7.25 an hour, but seeing as you are too lazy to make your own burger, or perhaps to incompetent to make one that isnt terrible, you need him.

Sorry, but minimum wage laws are irrational. And anyone advocating them is a ******* idiot. Sometimes truth is hard.

Go ahead and take the pepsi challenge, work for less than minimum wage if you think its so great, keep doing your fancy job, just discard your salary.

This top tax rate of 70% nonsense is pure nonsense. If it raised enormous sums of money, then tax receipts as a % of GDP would have been much higher than when rates were lower. They weren't. The trend line for tax receipts hovers around 18% of GDP.

Not really, it fluctuates pretty wildly,it was only with rosevelt that we started to see the govt attempt to wrangle revenues to a target around 18%, dont confuse this for some magical fluke that the universe harmonizes the gravitons to force an 18% rate.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

but you know what? Ill entertain that, 18% is a good target, seeing as we are only taking ~16% of the gdp currently, we have AMPLE room to tax the rich.

I've seen some liberals around here throwing around that number, but in any case I was just using it as an example. So, $400 a week, doesn't that come out to about $12/hr after taxes and all? I take it you are advocating for an increase in the minimum wage law, and are apparently not convinced that an increase of that magnitude would have significant consequences for jobs lost and smaller companies going out of business. Current minimum wage is what, somewhere between $8 and $9 dollars/hr? So you're going to increase labor costs by somewhere between a third to a half more? For businesses that manage to stay open, that has to mean either fewer jobs or higher prices or both. Neither is optimal for economic growth.

Thats a 40% tax rate, why so high? oversight I imagine.

You dont seem to be coming from a business background, much of the labor costs are hidden from the employee; the administrative and regulatory compliance costs, the employers half of the wage tax is especially perverse as it is a tax on a cost, as opposed to on profit, it is also the biggest hit many small businesses take. I DO want small businesses to thrive, and that means making big business carry its weight, as well as forcing wages up so that small businesses have customers at all.


responding to vapid bullshit with actual information takes exponentially more time, but I do what I can. I wonder how many of you are getting paid for this? those of you that are enjoying yourselves here, getting warm fuzzies for people agreeing with things you have been trained to say, how many of these traits can you find in your "friends"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation   (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)  by H. Michael Sweeney

 

[The Rabbi]

This is simply not true in any meaningful sense. Ir ealize you will trot out some chart showing "median household income" and it will demonstrate that you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

FLAAAAAAAT
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And right on cue you post something showing you don't have a ******* clue what you're babbling about. Nurse!

 

[The Rabbi]

I am always amazed when liberals toss this idea of a living wage around, like there's no consequences. Say you raise the minimum wage up to $20 bucks an hour on average. How many businesses do you think can absorb that extra expense without raising prices bigtime or outsourcing jobs or going out of business? Say they raise prices to cover the higher labor costs, how competitive does that make foreign products here? How attractive will US goods be at a higher price overseas? The day this is tried is the day we enter a depression greater than the one in the 1930s.

Only a conservative would think that liberals want to raise minimum wage to $20 an hour. No one is saying that at all.

You should be taking home no less than $400 a week in a full time, minimum wage job in the US.

How do you arrive at this figure? SHould it be the same in NYC as small town Kansas?
You really don't think much, do you?

 

[Oldstyle]

This is simply not true in any meaningful sense. Ir ealize you will trot out some chart showing "median household income" and it will demonstrate that you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

FLAAAAAAAT
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can start and run a business, and take home a decent salary from it; you however cannot freeload off of the infrastructure that made that happen. Pay yourself, 80k? super, keep most of it. pay yourself 100 million dollars? We're taking most of that. You arnt rumplestiltskin, sitting in a barn spinning straw into gold, you used the services we provided, you couldnt have accomplished what you have without them, we have bills to pay, pony up. Dont look at them, they're not rich yet, you were able to get rich because some other rich guy was getting taxed while you skated by and built yourself up.

Based on what? Your worthless assertion? You're really so stupid that you think people go out of their way to spend all of their extra money on food? the kids need braces, the cars making a weird sound, it sure would be nice to have life insurance etc, but no you regard Americans as having the mental capacity of a betta fish.


He is contributing, you sniveling pussbag, if he wernt needed the business would keep that $7.25 an hour, but seeing as you are too lazy to make your own burger, or perhaps to incompetent to make one that isnt terrible, you need him.

Go ahead and take the pepsi challenge, work for less than minimum wage if you think its so great, keep doing your fancy job, just discard your salary.

This top tax rate of 70% nonsense is pure nonsense. If it raised enormous sums of money, then tax receipts as a % of GDP would have been much higher than when rates were lower. They weren't. The trend line for tax receipts hovers around 18% of GDP.

Not really, it fluctuates pretty wildly,it was only with rosevelt that we started to see the govt attempt to wrangle revenues to a target around 18%, dont confuse this for some magical fluke that the universe harmonizes the gravitons to force an 18% rate.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

but you know what? Ill entertain that, 18% is a good target, seeing as we are only taking ~16% of the gdp currently, we have AMPLE room to tax the rich.

I've seen some liberals around here throwing around that number, but in any case I was just using it as an example. So, $400 a week, doesn't that come out to about $12/hr after taxes and all? I take it you are advocating for an increase in the minimum wage law, and are apparently not convinced that an increase of that magnitude would have significant consequences for jobs lost and smaller companies going out of business. Current minimum wage is what, somewhere between $8 and $9 dollars/hr? So you're going to increase labor costs by somewhere between a third to a half more? For businesses that manage to stay open, that has to mean either fewer jobs or higher prices or both. Neither is optimal for economic growth.

Thats a 40% tax rate, why so high? oversight I imagine.

You dont seem to be coming from a business background, much of the labor costs are hidden from the employee; the administrative and regulatory compliance costs, the employers half of the wage tax is especially perverse as it is a tax on a cost, as opposed to on profit, it is also the biggest hit many small businesses take. I DO want small businesses to thrive, and that means making big business carry its weight, as well as forcing wages up so that small businesses have customers at all.


responding to vapid bullshit with actual information takes exponentially more time, but I do what I can. I wonder how many of you are getting paid for this? those of you that are enjoying yourselves here, getting warm fuzzies for people agreeing with things you have been trained to say, how many of these traits can you find in your "friends"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:** The Rules of Disinformation * (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)* by H. Michael Sweeney

First of all, ReallyMeow...your concept of how it works when you own a company is about as misguided as the rest of your concept of how economics works. Profits don't start at the top and then trickle down to labor...it's actually the other way around. Workers get paid first...long before an owner realizes a profit, if in fact they ever do. The owners of most companies often times work long hours for YEARS before they begin to see a profit all the time paying out salaries to their employees whether or not there IS a profit. So what do you...in your misguided progressive zeal...want to do? Punish those people who HAVE worked long and hard to build businesses...all the while paying workers...because now they are finally enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and sacrifice? You arbitrarily decide that you'll allow these people that grew the economy to keep a certain amount of their own money because YOU feel that it's "fair"?

And when you DO all of this...my naive little progressive shill...you don't think it's going to have a negative effect on people WANTING to risk their own money and time to start up the next Apple or Microsoft or IBM? You don't have a clue how either businesses work or the economy in general works and yet you're here holding forth on how you think things SHOULD be. It's both amusing and scary to watch you in action.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is simply not true in any meaningful sense. Ir ealize you will trot out some chart showing "median household income" and it will demonstrate that you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

FLAAAAAAAT
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can start and run a business, and take home a decent salary from it; you however cannot freeload off of the infrastructure that made that happen. Pay yourself, 80k? super, keep most of it. pay yourself 100 million dollars? We're taking most of that. You arnt rumplestiltskin, sitting in a barn spinning straw into gold, you used the services we provided, you couldnt have accomplished what you have without them, we have bills to pay, pony up. Dont look at them, they're not rich yet, you were able to get rich because some other rich guy was getting taxed while you skated by and built yourself up.

Based on what? Your worthless assertion? You're really so stupid that you think people go out of their way to spend all of their extra money on food? the kids need braces, the cars making a weird sound, it sure would be nice to have life insurance etc, but no you regard Americans as having the mental capacity of a betta fish.


He is contributing, you sniveling pussbag, if he wernt needed the business would keep that $7.25 an hour, but seeing as you are too lazy to make your own burger, or perhaps to incompetent to make one that isnt terrible, you need him.

Go ahead and take the pepsi challenge, work for less than minimum wage if you think its so great, keep doing your fancy job, just discard your salary.

Not really, it fluctuates pretty wildly,it was only with rosevelt that we started to see the govt attempt to wrangle revenues to a target around 18%, dont confuse this for some magical fluke that the universe harmonizes the gravitons to force an 18% rate.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

but you know what? Ill entertain that, 18% is a good target, seeing as we are only taking ~16% of the gdp currently, we have AMPLE room to tax the rich.

I've seen some liberals around here throwing around that number, but in any case I was just using it as an example. So, $400 a week, doesn't that come out to about $12/hr after taxes and all? I take it you are advocating for an increase in the minimum wage law, and are apparently not convinced that an increase of that magnitude would have significant consequences for jobs lost and smaller companies going out of business. Current minimum wage is what, somewhere between $8 and $9 dollars/hr? So you're going to increase labor costs by somewhere between a third to a half more? For businesses that manage to stay open, that has to mean either fewer jobs or higher prices or both. Neither is optimal for economic growth.

Thats a 40% tax rate, why so high? oversight I imagine.

You dont seem to be coming from a business background, much of the labor costs are hidden from the employee; the administrative and regulatory compliance costs, the employers half of the wage tax is especially perverse as it is a tax on a cost, as opposed to on profit, it is also the biggest hit many small businesses take. I DO want small businesses to thrive, and that means making big business carry its weight, as well as forcing wages up so that small businesses have customers at all.


responding to vapid bullshit with actual information takes exponentially more time, but I do what I can. I wonder how many of you are getting paid for this? those of you that are enjoying yourselves here, getting warm fuzzies for people agreeing with things you have been trained to say, how many of these traits can you find in your "friends"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:** The Rules of Disinformation * (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)* by H. Michael Sweeney

First of all, ReallyMeow...your concept of how it works when you own a company is about as misguided as the rest of your concept of how economics works. Profits don't start at the top and then trickle down to labor...it's actually the other way around. Workers get paid first...long before an owner realizes a profit, if in fact they ever do. The owners of most companies often times work long hours for YEARS before they begin to see a profit all the time paying out salaries to their employees whether or not there IS a profit. So what do you...in your misguided progressive zeal...want to do? Punish those people who HAVE worked long and hard to build businesses...all the while paying workers...because now they are finally enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and sacrifice? You arbitrarily decide that you'll allow these people that grew the economy to keep a certain amount of their own money because YOU feel that it's "fair"?

And when you DO all of this...my naive little progressive shill...you don't think it's going to have a negative effect on people WANTING to risk their own money and time to start up the next Apple or Microsoft or IBM? You don't have a clue how either businesses work or the economy in general works and yet you're here holding forth on how you think things SHOULD be. It's both amusing and scary to watch you in action.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am always amazed when liberals toss this idea of a living wage around, like there's no consequences. Say you raise the minimum wage up to $20 bucks an hour on average. How many businesses do you think can absorb that extra expense without raising prices bigtime or outsourcing jobs or going out of business? Say they raise prices to cover the higher labor costs, how competitive does that make foreign products here? How attractive will US goods be at a higher price overseas? The day this is tried is the day we enter a depression greater than the one in the 1930s.

Only a conservative would think that liberals want to raise minimum wage to $20 an hour. No one is saying that at all.

You should be taking home no less than $400 a week in a full time, minimum wage job in the US.

well then someone who went to school for 10 years beyond HS, works 80 hours a week, and had to move 10 times should get $5000 a week right??

Once libturds determine a wage they will determine all wages and then determine everything from the commanding heights. They simply lack the IQ to understand that free markets are smarter than they are.

 

[daveman]

First of all, ReallyMeow...your concept of how it works when you own a company is about as misguided as the rest of your concept of how economics works. Profits don't start at the top and then trickle down to labor...it's actually the other way around. Workers get paid first...long before an owner realizes a profit, if in fact they ever do. The owners of most companies often times work long hours for YEARS before they begin to see a profit all the time paying out salaries to their employees whether or not there IS a profit. So what do you...in your misguided progressive zeal...want to do? Punish those people who HAVE worked long and hard to build businesses...all the while paying workers...because now they are finally enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and sacrifice? You arbitrarily decide that you'll allow these people that grew the economy to keep a certain amount of their own money because YOU feel that it's "fair"?

And when you DO all of this...my naive little progressive shill...you don't think it's going to have a negative effect on people WANTING to risk their own money and time to start up the next Apple or Microsoft or IBM? You don't have a clue how either businesses work or the economy in general works and yet you're here holding forth on how you think things SHOULD be. It's both amusing and scary to watch you in action.

It would be amusing if there weren't people who "think" just like him running the country.

 

[Noomi]

I am always amazed when liberals toss this idea of a living wage around, like there's no consequences. Say you raise the minimum wage up to $20 bucks an hour on average. How many businesses do you think can absorb that extra expense without raising prices bigtime or outsourcing jobs or going out of business? Say they raise prices to cover the higher labor costs, how competitive does that make foreign products here? How attractive will US goods be at a higher price overseas? The day this is tried is the day we enter a depression greater than the one in the 1930s.

Only a conservative would think that liberals want to raise minimum wage to $20 an hour. No one is saying that at all.

You should be taking home no less than $400 a week in a full time, minimum wage job in the US.

well then someone who went to school for 10 years beyond HS, works 80 hours a week, and had to move 10 times should get $5000 a week right??

Once libturds determine a wage they will determine all wages and then determine everything from the commanding heights. They simply lack the IQ to understand that free markets are smarter than they are.

How do you get that? It depends what job you have. The minimum wage should be set at $10 an hour. However many hours you work is up to you and your employer.

 

[ReallyMeow]

This is simply not true in any meaningful sense. Ir ealize you will trot out some chart showing "median household income" and it will demonstrate that you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

FLAAAAAAAT
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can start and run a business, and take home a decent salary from it; you however cannot freeload off of the infrastructure that made that happen. Pay yourself, 80k? super, keep most of it. pay yourself 100 million dollars? We're taking most of that. You arnt rumplestiltskin, sitting in a barn spinning straw into gold, you used the services we provided, you couldnt have accomplished what you have without them, we have bills to pay, pony up. Dont look at them, they're not rich yet, you were able to get rich because some other rich guy was getting taxed while you skated by and built yourself up.

Based on what? Your worthless assertion? You're really so stupid that you think people go out of their way to spend all of their extra money on food? the kids need braces, the cars making a weird sound, it sure would be nice to have life insurance etc, but no you regard Americans as having the mental capacity of a betta fish.


He is contributing, you sniveling pussbag, if he wernt needed the business would keep that $7.25 an hour, but seeing as you are too lazy to make your own burger, or perhaps to incompetent to make one that isnt terrible, you need him.

Go ahead and take the pepsi challenge, work for less than minimum wage if you think its so great, keep doing your fancy job, just discard your salary.

Not really, it fluctuates pretty wildly,it was only with rosevelt that we started to see the govt attempt to wrangle revenues to a target around 18%, dont confuse this for some magical fluke that the universe harmonizes the gravitons to force an 18% rate.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

but you know what? Ill entertain that, 18% is a good target, seeing as we are only taking ~16% of the gdp currently, we have AMPLE room to tax the rich.

I've seen some liberals around here throwing around that number, but in any case I was just using it as an example. So, $400 a week, doesn't that come out to about $12/hr after taxes and all? I take it you are advocating for an increase in the minimum wage law, and are apparently not convinced that an increase of that magnitude would have significant consequences for jobs lost and smaller companies going out of business. Current minimum wage is what, somewhere between $8 and $9 dollars/hr? So you're going to increase labor costs by somewhere between a third to a half more? For businesses that manage to stay open, that has to mean either fewer jobs or higher prices or both. Neither is optimal for economic growth.

Thats a 40% tax rate, why so high? oversight I imagine.

You dont seem to be coming from a business background, much of the labor costs are hidden from the employee; the administrative and regulatory compliance costs, the employers half of the wage tax is especially perverse as it is a tax on a cost, as opposed to on profit, it is also the biggest hit many small businesses take. I DO want small businesses to thrive, and that means making big business carry its weight, as well as forcing wages up so that small businesses have customers at all.


responding to vapid bullshit with actual information takes exponentially more time, but I do what I can. I wonder how many of you are getting paid for this? those of you that are enjoying yourselves here, getting warm fuzzies for people agreeing with things you have been trained to say, how many of these traits can you find in your "friends"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:** The Rules of Disinformation * (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)* by H. Michael Sweeney

First of all, ReallyMeow...your concept of how it works when you own a company is about as misguided as the rest of your concept of how economics works. Profits don't start at the top and then trickle down to labor...it's actually the other way around. Workers get paid first...long before an owner realizes a profit, if in fact they ever do. The owners of most companies often times work long hours for YEARS before they begin to see a profit all the time paying out salaries to their employees whether or not there IS a profit. So what do you...in your misguided progressive zeal...want to do? Punish those people who HAVE worked long and hard to build businesses...all the while paying workers...because now they are finally enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and sacrifice? You arbitrarily decide that you'll allow these people that grew the economy to keep a certain amount of their own money because YOU feel that it's "fair"?

And when you DO all of this...my naive little progressive shill...you don't think it's going to have a negative effect on people WANTING to risk their own money and time to start up the next Apple or Microsoft or IBM? You don't have a clue how either businesses work or the economy in general works and yet you're here holding forth on how you think things SHOULD be. It's both amusing and scary to watch you in action.

Oh boo hoo, my income OVER a million is being heavily taxed, a million, yet somehow Im a "small" business owner. Do words even mean anything to you anymore?

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, you're an illiterate, you're hardly making any money? keep it. You're flush with cash? contribute. the **** is wrong with that? Nothing, you just hate America and are desperate for an excuse to ruin it.

The Final Word on Mitt Romney?s Tax Plan - Bloomberg

 

[The Rabbi]

You're not very bright, are you?

 

[daveman]

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: The search for a superior moral justification for covetousness.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Im still waiting for that "demonstration" by all means, show me how those flat wages can now buy more. education is cheaper? whoops, its skyrocketing. how about housing? nope, skyrocketing. taxes? all that trickle down goodness must surely be paying off by now? HA, NOPE.

covetousness

cram it deadbeat, your social experiment failed.

 

[daveman]

covetousness

cram it deadbeat, your social experiment failed.

Deadbeat? I have a job. You're not entitled to the money I make, no matter how much whining you do.

If you want something, get off your ass and work for it. Nobody owes you anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

Im still waiting for that "demonstration" by all means, show me how those flat wages can now buy more. education is cheaper? whoops, its skyrocketing. how about housing? nope, skyrocketing. taxes? all that trickle down goodness must surely be paying off by now? HA, NOPE.

covetousness

cram it deadbeat, your social experiment failed.

Wages aren't flat. You've never demonstrated that. As I said. You've only demonstrated you're really really stupid and bad at reading graphs.

 

[Ava]

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?

No, no job should be required to pay any minimum wage, set forth by he government. The --once free -- market will take care of itself, without being told how much to pay any worker. The owner of an establishment will pay a wage suitable to stay in business and keep a "productive" employee happy.

Many minimum wage earners today are being highly over paid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?

No, no job should be required to pay any minimum wage, set forth by he government. The --once free -- market will take care of itself, without being told how much to pay any worker. The owner of an establishment will pay a wage suitable to stay in business and keep a "productive" employee happy.

Many minimum wage earners today are being highly over paid.

good point, the beauty of capitalism is that have to provide the best jobs and best products just to survive. Thats why it reversed all of human history in 200 years

 

[ReallyMeow]

covetousness

cram it deadbeat, your social experiment failed.

Deadbeat? I have a job. You're not entitled to the money I make, no matter how much whining you do.

If you want something, get off your ass and work for it. Nobody owes you anything.

You're using the services America provides you with to get rich running your business? Pay up, deadbeat. You were extended the courtosy of not needing to pay for it up front to give you a chance to get rich, now that you are: you owe us. Im not asking for some sort of radical utopia, I want a balanced budget; pay up freeloader.

Im still waiting for that "demonstration" by all means, show me how those flat wages can now buy more. education is cheaper? whoops, its skyrocketing. how about housing? nope, skyrocketing. taxes? all that trickle down goodness must surely be paying off by now? HA, NOPE.

covetousness

cram it deadbeat, your social experiment failed.

Wages aren't flat. You've never demonstrated that. As I said. You've only demonstrated you're really really stupid and bad at reading graphs.

Yes, they are.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...equality7.svg/600px-IncomeInequality7.svg.png

a four point one percent increase is THIRTY times a point three percent increase. FLAAAAAT

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?

No, no job should be required to pay any minimum wage, set forth by he government. The --once free -- market will take care of itself, without being told how much to pay any worker. The owner of an establishment will pay a wage suitable to stay in business and keep a "productive" employee happy.

Many minimum wage earners today are being highly over paid.

Im sure you are volunteering for this radical poverty you seek to inflict on others?

 

[Oldstyle]

FLAAAAAAAT
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can start and run a business, and take home a decent salary from it; you however cannot freeload off of the infrastructure that made that happen. Pay yourself, 80k? super, keep most of it. pay yourself 100 million dollars? We're taking most of that. You arnt rumplestiltskin, sitting in a barn spinning straw into gold, you used the services we provided, you couldnt have accomplished what you have without them, we have bills to pay, pony up. Dont look at them, they're not rich yet, you were able to get rich because some other rich guy was getting taxed while you skated by and built yourself up.

Based on what? Your worthless assertion? You're really so stupid that you think people go out of their way to spend all of their extra money on food? the kids need braces, the cars making a weird sound, it sure would be nice to have life insurance etc, but no you regard Americans as having the mental capacity of a betta fish.


He is contributing, you sniveling pussbag, if he wernt needed the business would keep that $7.25 an hour, but seeing as you are too lazy to make your own burger, or perhaps to incompetent to make one that isnt terrible, you need him.

Go ahead and take the pepsi challenge, work for less than minimum wage if you think its so great, keep doing your fancy job, just discard your salary.

Not really, it fluctuates pretty wildly,it was only with rosevelt that we started to see the govt attempt to wrangle revenues to a target around 18%, dont confuse this for some magical fluke that the universe harmonizes the gravitons to force an 18% rate.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

but you know what? Ill entertain that, 18% is a good target, seeing as we are only taking ~16% of the gdp currently, we have AMPLE room to tax the rich.


Thats a 40% tax rate, why so high? oversight I imagine.

You dont seem to be coming from a business background, much of the labor costs are hidden from the employee; the administrative and regulatory compliance costs, the employers half of the wage tax is especially perverse as it is a tax on a cost, as opposed to on profit, it is also the biggest hit many small businesses take. I DO want small businesses to thrive, and that means making big business carry its weight, as well as forcing wages up so that small businesses have customers at all.


responding to vapid bullshit with actual information takes exponentially more time, but I do what I can. I wonder how many of you are getting paid for this? those of you that are enjoying yourselves here, getting warm fuzzies for people agreeing with things you have been trained to say, how many of these traits can you find in your "friends"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:** The Rules of Disinformation * (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)* by H. Michael Sweeney

First of all, ReallyMeow...your concept of how it works when you own a company is about as misguided as the rest of your concept of how economics works. Profits don't start at the top and then trickle down to labor...it's actually the other way around. Workers get paid first...long before an owner realizes a profit, if in fact they ever do. The owners of most companies often times work long hours for YEARS before they begin to see a profit all the time paying out salaries to their employees whether or not there IS a profit. So what do you...in your misguided progressive zeal...want to do? Punish those people who HAVE worked long and hard to build businesses...all the while paying workers...because now they are finally enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and sacrifice? You arbitrarily decide that you'll allow these people that grew the economy to keep a certain amount of their own money because YOU feel that it's "fair"?

And when you DO all of this...my naive little progressive shill...you don't think it's going to have a negative effect on people WANTING to risk their own money and time to start up the next Apple or Microsoft or IBM? You don't have a clue how either businesses work or the economy in general works and yet you're here holding forth on how you think things SHOULD be. It's both amusing and scary to watch you in action.

Oh boo hoo, my income OVER a million is being heavily taxed, a million, yet somehow Im a "small" business owner. Do words even mean anything to you anymore?

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, you're an illiterate, you're hardly making any money? keep it. You're flush with cash? contribute. the **** is wrong with that? Nothing, you just hate America and are desperate for an excuse to ruin it.

The Final Word on Mitt Romney?s Tax Plan - Bloomberg

I "hate America" because my economic solutions are based in reality while yours are based strictly on ideology? People like you would be amusing if you weren't so dangerous. You're so worried that some wealthy person is going to be able to keep some of the money that they earned that you're willing to push fiscal policy that will keep millions of people who are not wealthy on unemployment. You're the person who hates America...because your "solution" would be a disaster for the country but you're so naive about economic policy that you can't see it.

If taking all of the income of wealthy Americans would fix the problem of our deficits then I'd reluctantly consider it but since it wouldn't even put a small dent in those deficits and would without question bring our economy to a grinding halt, why would ANYONE want to do something so asinine? That's reality and that's what you want to ignore.