# Heres the answer.



## OnePercenter (Jan 9, 2014)

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 10, 2014)

.

Yikes.

What was the QUESTION?

.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 10, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> ...




Damn. You beat me to the punch.  That deserves a pos rep from me!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 10, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...




And now, on the serious side: your points are interesting. I am going to do some research and come back to this thread on Saturday, maybe Sunday.

I'm the type of guy with lots of curiousity in my soul and would prefere to prepare first...


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 10, 2014)

Because wage and price controls worked so well under Nixon.


----------



## editec (Jan 10, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.


\
Not that I don't think Min Wage doesn't need to go up but this would be a shock to the system that would be catastrophe,



> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.



How  about* legit business expenses*?  Of Course _those_ need to be written off.  



> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.



Not sure what that means.  But I do think we ought o computer COLA's based on the_ PRE CLINTON_ system of computing CPI.  

If that were done Social Security recipients would be owned a staggering amount of repayments for the GRAND THEFT this system really has become since the 90s



> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.




Proce controls are almost always  bad idea ..except perhaps in times of WAR or I(REAL) national emergency.

*Nixxon tried that, ya know?*

*It blew up in everybody's faces.*


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 10, 2014)

Nixon's price controls on domestic crude hobbled an entire industry.


----------



## oldfart (Jan 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Because wage and price controls worked so well under Nixon.



Blast from the past!  Remember Ford's "Whip Inflation Now! ( WIN) program?


----------



## oldfart (Jan 10, 2014)

editec said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



I've been having this debate with my son.  There is no real evidence that increases in the minimum wage on the scale of past increases is inflationary.  But there are two caveats:
1.  If you take the position that future increases will also not be inflationary, you are relying on the substitution effect replacing low cost labor as a mechanism to get there.  So you really can't argue that low wage employment will be unaffected, especially for large changes.  
2.  Data from smaller stepped changes might not apply to larger changes (like to $15 per hour).  

Overall, I support an increase to say $15 an hour in stages and indexing to the CPI.  But I'm not arguing there will be no employment effects, just that as part of a program for economic growth such an increase would play a positive role.   



editec said:


> > -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off&#8217;s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> 
> 
> How  about* legit business expenses*?  Of Course _those_ need to be written off.



I make a living as a tax practitioner.  Don't get me started.  



editec said:


> > -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm confused too.  But then I live in the state of confusion where I get most of my exercise by jumping to conclusions.  



editec said:


> > -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that markets and not governments should set prices.  To your list of exceptions I would add price controls for monopolies like state utility commissions.  

Peace, y'all.


----------



## jwoodie (Jan 10, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



Are you willing to pay $10 for a Big Mac?  Or would you rather McDonald's goes out of business?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jan 10, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> ...



The answer is easy.  The question requires a more powerful computer.

#42


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 10, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



Your figures are entirely made up. 1968 is generally accepted as having the highest federal minimum wage in terms of real value since the inception of the law in the US, at $1.60 an hour. Use an inflation calculator and that works out to $10.72 an hour, half of what you suggest.

Here's a pretty good overview of the topic here

U.S. Minimum Wage History

You aren't being realistic with your figures at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 10, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



The question is "What is the dumbest set of policy arguments anyone has ever made?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 10, 2014)

oldfart said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Can I assume you son is winning the debate?

I have a few  questions for you.



Have you looked at what happens when minimum wage is raised above the level of prevailing wages?
Why do large corporations and unions generally support increases in minimum wage?
What happens to small business when minimum wage increases?
Does the fact that real world data indicates that higher minimum wages results in more chain stores and fewer mom and pop stores contribute to income inequality?
Is it remotely possible that you are working against your priorities when you only look at the low wage earner in trying to fix the problems you perceive?




oldfart said:


> I make a living as a tax practitioner.  Don't get me started.



Lots of horror stores about all the H&R Block customers that blame you for selling them an instant refund at exorbitant interest rate?



oldfart said:


> I'm confused too.  But then I live in the state of confusion where I get most of my exercise by jumping to conclusions.



Trust me, we can tell.



oldfart said:


> I agree that markets and not governments should set prices.  To your list of exceptions I would add price controls for monopolies like state utility commissions.
> 
> Peace, y'all.



Because legal monopolies are always good.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 10, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...





What's the question?

How to destroy the economy once and for all?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 10, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




So long, and thanks for all the fish!

(sorry to go OT, but it was fun!)


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jan 10, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



How many roads must a man walk down before he can call himself a man?


----------



## BobPlumb (Jan 11, 2014)

To be or not to be?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> What was the QUESTION?



How do you fix the economy.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 11, 2014)

I vote we do it, but if it fails to meet you benchmarks in making "things" better as you define them to be, you sign a contract that you publicly hang yourself only after you apologize.

Ok?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Because wage and price controls worked so well under Nixon.



True, but mine carries a nifty business subsidy!


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 11, 2014)

Hey 1%. I love your idea. I have  a plan, I will run my business (I do own one)  and pay 100% of my profits to my new employee!!!!!!!!!!! My wife. Thanks for 0% taxes no matter how much I make. 

I know you will love it when big corps are making even bigger profits for their CEO's. Grats, you once again made the poor pooer and the rich vastly more wealthy!


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 11, 2014)

This is where you start putting caps on how much a wage can be or how much someone can ear before you re-apply the tax you took away. What, 20 mil a year for one person was too much to not tax?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

editec said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



Sure it would be a shock to the system. Almost every American would receive an increase in pay and business would pay zero taxes and fees.

Price controls are also good with huge business subsidies.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> Nixon's price controls on domestic crude hobbled an entire industry.





oldfart said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Because wage and price controls worked so well under Nixon.
> ...



Not close to what I'm writing.


----------



## Sunshine (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter how much minimum wage is.  Minimum wage workers will always be on the bottom rung.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



Why would you? McDonalds costs aren't going to increase.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



Sure I am. Food, shelter, and transportation is more accurate than any 'inflation calculator', and leaps more accurate than CPI. 1970-2013 price increase, and contrast to minimum wage will give you $23.50/hr.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



Why?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> Hey 1%. I love your idea. I have  a plan, I will run my business (I do own one)  and pay 100% of my profits to my new employee!!!!!!!!!!! My wife. Thanks for 0% taxes no matter how much I make.
> 
> I know you will love it when big corps are making even bigger profits for their CEO's. Grats, you once again made the poor pooer and the rich vastly more wealthy!



So your employee expenses exceed gross taxes and fees?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> This is where you start putting caps on how much a wage can be or how much someone can ear before you re-apply the tax you took away. What, 20 mil a year for one person was too much to not tax?



I never wrote capping wage.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 11, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



In the 60's, a minimum wage worker was able to support a family. I'm correcting for the obvious 'screwing' the middle-class received.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



If THATS the problem ----  you got the wrong toolbox..  You tinkering around with duct tape and a hammer....  This country is losing relevance in a global economy.  Bleeding jobs and skills at a time when 10000 folks a day are retiring and education levels are no longer sufficient for survival for 70% of the population.   

You need to hike up the hill a bit and get a wider picture of the problem..  Raising Min Wage would INCREASE our abysmal HS  dropout rates..  Couldnt do more damage with dynamite.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



No it isn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Why not eliminate the need for subsidies by eliminating the price controls.

My bad. The object of this thread is to post the stupid and unworkable ideas, not the ones that make sense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Of course they won't, because they are using magic money to pay their employees.

Newsflash, a tax deduction does not mean the government pays you money, it means you don't pay them. Costs will still go up, and the government will get less money.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Because I have never heard anything dumber? If you have an example of something more stupid feel free to lay it out, until then I am sticking with my assessment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 11, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



In 1969 the minimum wage was $1.60/hr, which works out to just over $3000 a year. I know for a fact that it is possible to survive on less, even today. You just have to live without cable TV and eating steak every night.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 11, 2014)

I really love the way everyone tosses out numbers for Min wage as tho the numbers mean the same EVERYWHERE in the 50 states.  Cost of living is a very LOCAL parameter.  Ther are 2:1 or 3:1 differences in rent, utilities, insurance even healthcare ---  People who propose Flat solutions to setting wages are true amatuers at economics and oblivious of the diverse choices in location...

Same deal for setting COLAS and safety nets...


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 12, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Hey 1%. I love your idea. I have  a plan, I will run my business (I do own one)  and pay 100% of my profits to my new employee!!!!!!!!!!! My wife. Thanks for 0% taxes no matter how much I make.
> ...



If you have an employee that works for 10$ an hour, and there is 2$ in taxes... that's 12$ an hour.... Now 10 employee's would be 960$ a day.

Under your costs of 22.50$ an hour (if I remember correctly) is 1,800$ a day. 

Now lets just say 10 employee's work 1 shift a day for 30days a month.




54,000$ payroll a month no taxes!
VS
28,800$ payroll a month with taxes!

Now lets do that by 1 year.....

648,000$
VS
345,600$

Now, if you know anything about business, you know that payroll is usually the highest cost you have, more than inventory/rent/energy.... So you took by far the most $ cost and doubled it. Even with no taxes added you bankrupted 85% (yes I made that up but I would prolly be surprisingly correct) of all business's in the US that have a staff outside of owner operated.

My Payroll will be around 190,000k this year, jumping to 400,000k would mean I fire every single employee and downsize.

Ooooor, I could raise rates on customers by about 120% seeing as not only did you double my payroll you also took all the deductions away... So, you were saying prices wouldn't go up? Tell me more about this, I just can't see it because you know, I can do math and all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 12, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



But it doesn't cost you anything because you get to use magic money and deduct the wages you pay from your taxes. The fact that all your other tax deductions and/or subsidies will disappear at the same time is irrelevant, because you still have magic money.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...





Quantum Windbag said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Well.... Payroll is already a deduction so 1% has no case. He simply claims at 22.5$ you pay no "extra" taxes. Reality is as I said, even with taxes 1% wants to double payroll. My higher paid employee's are 20-25$ an hour, but low is 10$. 

Now 1% wants to make the people at 25$ an hour just slightly over min wage... and as common sense would dictate, shortly after this massive pay raise across the nation, there would be mass UE or prices on all goods would double. Meaning the economy either crashes into an unfixable depression with in a month's time (maybe less) or prices adjust quickly making 22.5$ an hour equal to the old min wage. Still not dealing with everyone who just got their paycheck demoted if they were above the 22.5$. I do mean everyone, even at 60$ an hour, you would have to get a 15$ raise to be making what you used to make.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I know!  We'll nationalize the oil companies and redistributre their obscene profits to minimum wage workers!  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Power to the people!


----------



## Avorysuds (Jan 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Whats that progressive country that does that? Liberals love them, despite all that Co2 they help the world create to kill us all with global warming.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Which 'price controls' caused the need for the hundreds of billions in subsidies for the oil companies and the big box stores?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 13, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



What?


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Minimum wage is 77% of what it was in the 60's , that fact is inescapable. Now , obviously that tells us a correction would be around $10, not $22.50 or whatever else the OP can think of.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 14, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Factor in the increase cost of food, housing, and transportation.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 14, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> I really love the way everyone tosses out numbers for Min wage as tho the numbers mean the same EVERYWHERE in the 50 states.  Cost of living is a very LOCAL parameter.  Ther are 2:1 or 3:1 differences in rent, utilities, insurance even healthcare ---  People who propose Flat solutions to setting wages are true amatuers at economics and oblivious of the diverse choices in location...
> 
> Same deal for setting COLAS and safety nets...



Fact: 80% of the population lives within 200 miles of water. Why don't you create an algorithm to calculate the differences in 'rent, utilities, insurance even healthcare'.

Good Luck!


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 14, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



What about workers comp?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



There is no 'magic money'. I'm giving what conservatives wanted in the first place...No Taxes for Business!


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 14, 2014)

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off&#8217;s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

New one!

-Subsidize all business with less than 200 employees the difference (if any) all taxes and fees vs total employee expenses.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 14, 2014)

Wow a real econ genius.  Let's say you have a company with 199 employees.  How likely are you to grow and add personnel?
Libs can't think beyond Step One.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 14, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Wow a real fucking econ genius.  Let's say you have a company with 199 employees.  How likely are you to grow and add personnel?
> Libs can't think beyond Step One.



You a lib? 

The answer is; You create a separate company.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Subsidize all business with less than 200 employees the difference (if any) all taxes and fees vs total employee expenses.

There's not much hope for the middle class of the US.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...





Historically, price freezes do not work.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



They've never been done like this.


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 15, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That IS factoring in the increase in costs of everything, do you not understand simple economic principles?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 15, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wow a real fucking econ genius.  Let's say you have a company with 199 employees.  How likely are you to grow and add personnel?
> ...



Illegal.  A company that is owned by the same entity as another cannot separate its workers for the purposes of avoiding regulation.  If that were so, companies would already be doing that to avoid the mandates of Obamacare.
You're not terribly informed here.


----------



## SayMyName (Jan 15, 2014)

Regardless the many recommendations that we might propose, in the end they are bandaids.

The United States was a viable economy all to its own before we started shipping jobs overseas and swinging the gates wide open to illegal immigration.

Immigration is fine, but a nation should monitor it so that the people who are already citizens can compete fairly for the jobs at hand and be paid their worth. That worth, in the free market, is determined by supply and demand...something every capitalist can understand.

It was when big business, government and others began playing with this formula that the playing field became unstable, and good paying jobs began to disappear.


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 15, 2014)

SayMyName said:


> Regardless the many recommendations that we might propose, in the end they are bandaids.
> 
> The United States was a viable economy all to its own before we started shipping jobs overseas and swinging the gates wide open to illegal immigration.
> 
> ...



Free of any government regulation businesses would be free to hire whomever they like, including illegal aliens


----------



## Flopper (Jan 15, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...


*So you plan is to:
Raise minimum wage to $23.50 which would increase business expenses, eliminate  business tax deductions which would also increase expenses, and freeze their prices.
*
*In labor intensive businesses such as food service, agriculture, and personal services, operating costs of many if not most of these business would exceed revenues since you would  be freezing prices.  These businesses would disappear along with the jobs they provide, obviously not a good idea.*


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 15, 2014)

Flopper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



I'm fairly certain the OP would also dictate that said companies operate at a loss and then offer them a government bailout. 

Insanity


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...




I concur.

And I am a "Leftie". Well, mostly.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


If it moves, tax it.  If it still moves, regulate it.  If it stops moving, subsidize it.


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




I'm fairly conservative, but believe SOMETHING needs to be done to address the fact that more and more Americans are sliding into financial obscurity, but damn just making up dollar amounts helps no one. If you're going to raise the minimum wage all the way to $23.50 per hour, you may as well make it $100.

Personally the more I think about it , the more I believe that a four step process is needed.

1. Set a minimum wage of $12 an hour
2. Change to a national sales tax of 10% on all retail purchases rather than an income tax
3. Mandate a balanced federal budget every year. If you don't have the money, tough shit. Now that doesn't mean the government can't carry debt, it just means that they better be able to pay their monthly obligations on that debt with their income without raising taxes. Same as you or I run our family budget, we have debt, but not more than we can afford.
4. Tell those who don' step 2 to shut up. No tax system is "fair"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 15, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off&#8217;s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



Wow, it sounds even dumber now than it did when you started the thread. I think that is because, despite the fact that multiple people have posted arguments against your position, you haven't come up with a single argument to defend it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 15, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Except when they were.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



He already did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



The first step is properly identifying the causal factors of the problem. Since your 4 step process assumes that you already know that, it starts from an invalid position.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I am too, but there are a lot of ideas from the Left, that just aren't doable and this is one of them.   A business will not operate if it can't show a profit and if a business disappears so do all jobs that business provides.  This should not be that difficult to comprehend.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...


Indexing minimum wage to inflation is a good idea.  It's already being done in 10 states and should be done nationally.  Doing so would settle the issue once and for all.  Then we wouldn't have to fight over the issue year after year.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



The post was written in response to wages.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Walmart is FIVE separate companies to avoid regulation.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

SayMyName said:


> Regardless the many recommendations that we might propose, in the end they are bandaids.
> 
> The United States was a viable economy all to its own before we started shipping jobs overseas and swinging the gates wide open to illegal immigration.
> 
> ...



No such thing as a free market - The market is highly manipulated.

There is no such thing as supply and demand - Again, manipulated.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless the many recommendations that we might propose, in the end they are bandaids.
> ...



Free of government regulation, or a BushCo turning it's collective head on enforcement, we have 2007-2008.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

Flopper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



You forgot '-Subsidize all business with less than 200 employees the difference (if any) all taxes and fees vs total employee expenses.'

The cost of doing business wouldn't increase. Supply costs are capped, taxes are differed/subsidized for employee costs, and with added monies spent in the economy business would increase.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 15, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...





Statistikhengst said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



They called me insane when I owned the first marketing company to see-through wrap buildings. We all know how that worked out.

They called me insane when I called for an all-out of the markets in August, 2007. We all know how that worked out.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Please explain.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Yet they have to comply with Obamacare.  Seems to refute your point pretty conclusively, s0n.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless the many recommendations that we might propose, in the end they are bandaids.
> ...


By the government.  You're right.
Are you still pitching that bullshit that Bush deregulated the economy and caused the crash?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


For businesses such as fast food, 35% of the business's cost is labor.  The average fast food worker makes about $9/hr. If you increase the minimum wage to $24.50  while maintaining the prices the business can charge, how do expect the business to survive?  Or do you plan for all businesses over 200 employees to fold up?


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Incorrect.

McD trains it managers to keep labor under 20%, then they figure 10% for management, meaning labor is at 30%, just like all other restaurants strive for.

In fact, if you own a restaraunt and consult with anyone on menu pricing they teach you. Figure 30% for labor 30 for food costs 30% for other costs and 10% profit and there you have your menu prices.

McDonalds franchises are slightly under on labor costs , on average, and around the same on food costs and slightly higher on other costs becuase of fees that McD corporation charges, and in fact MANY franchise owners are getting sick of it and demanding that McD lower their fees.

McD prevents franchise owners from paying higher wages unless they wish to take it out of their 10% because they REFUSE to lower their fees

Why McDonald's franchisees are simmering- MSN Money

I don't blame the owners of these franchises feeling that anything less than 10% is not worth the trouble and thus not raising wages, I DO blame the corporation for raising rates to such an extent that they are making more off a franchise than the owner AND the employees combined.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


How do expect the businesses with over 200 employees who would not be subsides by the government to recover the increase in costs if they can not raise prices?  Economist estimate that prices would have have to rise 20% in fast food restaurants just cover a $15 minimum wage and you are proposing $24.50. 

Debating the effects of a $15 fast food wage


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jan 16, 2014)

Yes. 25% to the franchise and 33% for labor. That's before the very expensive location the franchise requires, utilities, supplies, equipment, etc. 



BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



Building wrap: Poly applied to buildings with perforations so one can see out. Mine was for Motorola StarTAC for the 1996 COMDEX.


----------



## BillyZane (Jan 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Oh come on, at least TRY to read the thread before commenting. I CLEARLY stated that even $15 was too high, but here you be saying I propose $24.50?I propose $10 an hour, I'd like to see $12, but with other factors that probably won't happen, so $10 should be where we're at.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



As they should. Walmart remains the largest company in the US relying on taxpayers to provide healthcare to their employees.

The post was about 'avoiding regulation'. If you kept up you'd know that Walmart IS five separate companies, in that, one of those companies is Walmart Transportation, LLC which is owned by the Walmart seven. It is kept separate to avoid regulation into Walmart Stores Inc. by the US DOT. Nothing illegal.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...



Should the BushCo SEC allowed Bank of America to buy CountryWide?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi OP If we cannot even get ELECTED govt that we HIRE and PAY
to run "effectively enough to lower the costs by cutting the waste," what makes you think you can FORCE free businesses to do so?

Are you willing to pay more to businesses so they can pay more to the workers?

Have you ever run a business on this model you propose?

NOTE: the successful businesses I have seen that create jobs for people 
DEPEND on the tax writeoffs for business expenses in order to operate.

If they didn't have that, they couldn't grow or would downsize and people would LOSE THEIR JOBS.

Why don't you focus on cutting down on losses for THEFT and GOVERNMENT WASTE that should be paid back to taxpayers by the wrongdoers?

Why expect businesses to pay for all this? why punish people who aren't breaking laws?

WHERE in your model are you charging the people who actually ABUSE or STEAL money and make THEM pay that back to the taxpayers?




OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



If you are backing down all costs and fees, then why not also the salaries to that same level?

OP have you ever run a business at the 2009 levels while paying salaries to workers at the 23 dollar level? 

Even the good meaning founders of Ben and Jerry's tried to pay all workers more evenly from top to bottom, tried to reduce the difference percentage wise between salaries at the different levels, and couldn't operate their company that way. Found out it didn't work.

They physically tried this. Have you?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Of course they glossed over the fact that a Big Mac increased in price 1200% from 1970 to 2013 which was far more than actual net costs. Could it be more profits derived from more greed?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> Yes. 25% to the franchise and 33% for labor. That's before the very expensive location the franchise requires, utilities, supplies, equipment, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think what a lot of people don't understand is that if you increase the cost of doing business, the business will always make adjustments to attempt to recover those costs without reducing income.  If the increase in costs are minor, then business will make minor adjustments.  If the increase in cost is big, then business will make big adjustments.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



1. Not enough.
2. Increasing sales tax hurts the middle-class. Reagan did this eleven times during his eight years.
3. How do you balance a budget based on expected revenue?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. 25% to the franchise and 33% for labor. That's before the very expensive location the franchise requires, utilities, supplies, equipment, etc.
> ...



Which makes my plan workable because business won't see increased costs, and it regulates to prevent increased greed.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jan 16, 2014)

I understand the tactic of using strong/hostile language to rally the cause and affect change. It is still incorrect. It had never been the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance, it was a perk/bonus to attract quality employees. It was cheaper to offer healthcare and salary than it was to compensate solely through payroll.  The idea that we subsidize their insurance is disingenuous.

Since employers were not required to provide insurance, I really don't understand the hostility. The dog groomer down the street does not provide health insurance at all to any of her employees ever. Can we all hate on that evil greedy sob?

If we (general, none of this person specific) want to change things and discuss that change, fine. Why start off being angry and placing blame because people/companies were doing things the way they'd always been done. Why act like the new way is the correct way and everyone who came before was an idiot or an asshole?



OnePercenter said:


> As they should. Walmart remains the largest company in the US relying on taxpayers to provide healthcare to their employees.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...


So, there're greedy bastards.  Anytime you pass legislation that significantly increases the cost of doing business, you have to ask yourself how will the business react.  How do you think labor intensive businesses will react to a $15 to $17/hr increase in employee pay?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> I understand the tactic of using strong/hostile language to rally the cause and affect change. It is still incorrect. It had never been the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance, it was a perk/bonus to attract quality employees. It was cheaper to offer healthcare and salary than it was to compensate solely through payroll.  The idea that we subsidize their insurance is disingenuous.
> 
> Since employers were not required to provide insurance, I really don't understand the hostility. The dog groomer down the street does not provide health insurance at all to any of her employees ever. Can we all hate on that evil greedy sob?
> 
> ...


Employers should not provide healthcare insurance. Compensate employees and let them buy their own insurance.  The employee can then choose the plan and company that best meets his needs and he can carry the insurance with him from job to job.

If an employee has to change jobs often, say more than once a year.  The employer provided insurance is often more expense than individual insurance because the employee will be subject to deductibles for multiple plans and if he is not careful he can end up with double coverage.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jan 16, 2014)

I agree that it should not be through employers. Actually, I kinda feel bad. What started as a new, innovative, good idea (lets offer benefits to get the cream of the crop) has turned to crap. No good deed ...


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Dear OP BZ and Stat:
Other things to consider

A. Human stress and effort in running and managing business and workers

Just because the numbers add up by percent does not account for the human factor.
My budget of time/money can cover certain projects "on paper" where the MATH adds up
But in real life, the amount of stress it takes to manage it costs me MORE time and money
I don't think you include that in those numbers
Like you don't include the costs of advertising, of lawsuits and losses from injury etc.
Those aren't just dollars and cents but time and hassle in running a business
Don't forget the human factor
if you cut the budget down where it runs on paper,
you might not have any humans who can work "that perfectly like machines"
to keep that business running. there has to be extra room in there when
you are dealing with human beings, the public. it's not just 10% here 30% there

B. BTW why are you only focusing on this factor

Why not look at the prison or military complex as a business industry?

If you look at what our tax dollars are paying for
and what is not being covered (like veterans only getting 5% of the budget to cover their needs, or 6 billion in retirement benefits to vets getting cut from the budget)

wouldn't THAT make a bigger difference both economically
and with taxes and government function and waste?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> I understand the tactic of using strong/hostile language to rally the cause and affect change. It is still incorrect. It had never been the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance, it was a perk/bonus to attract quality employees. It was cheaper to offer healthcare and salary than it was to compensate solely through payroll.  The idea that we subsidize their insurance is disingenuous.



We've always subsidized employee healthcare. Employee expenses are 100% deductible. 



> Since employers were not required to provide insurance, I really don't understand the hostility. The dog groomer down the street does not provide health insurance at all to any of her employees ever. Can we all hate on that evil greedy sob?



Under my plan she will be able to provide healthcare and give her employees a BIG raise with a net cost increase of zero, with an added benefit of EVERYONE in her town also get a BIG raise so she can take 'Dirty-Dirty Dog' to the next level of growth.



> If we (general, none of this person specific) want to change things and discuss that change, fine. Why start off being angry and placing blame because people/companies were doing things the way they'd always been done. Why act like the new way is the correct way and everyone who came before was an idiot or an asshole?



Your 'doing things the way they'd always been done' statement isn't true. Before Reagan changed the HMO act effectively eliminating competition in the insurance industry, companies would regularly provide healthcare for their employees because it was cheap. I know this because I wrote the checks. Today, healthcare is expensive and generally not affordable to individuals. Companies are subsidized for providing healthcare insurance (which all should be doing) and not raising net by letting taxpayers do it.



OnePercenter said:


> As they should. Walmart remains the largest company in the US relying on taxpayers to provide healthcare to their employees.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi OP If we cannot even get ELECTED govt that we HIRE and PAY
> to run "effectively enough to lower the costs by cutting the waste," what makes you think you can FORCE free businesses to do so?
> 
> Are you willing to pay more to businesses so they can pay more to the workers?
> ...



What I'm suggesting is moving taxes and fee's paid by companies to wages for their employees. What's wrong with that?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



When 100% of their labor costs are subsidized more than they are today? What's wrong with free employees?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 16, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the tactic of using strong/hostile language to rally the cause and affect change. It is still incorrect. It had never been the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance, it was a perk/bonus to attract quality employees. It was cheaper to offer healthcare and salary than it was to compensate solely through payroll.  The idea that we subsidize their insurance is disingenuous.
> ...



What's the difference? How do you make sure the employee actually buys insurance rather than pocketing the cash?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Tresha91203 said:
> ...


Well it makes a lot of difference for the employer. Offering insurance is expensive for large companies, paying a portion of the premiums, administrative costs, plus the cost in selecting the companies and plans.  Large companies usually have dedicated HR people just to handle insurance.

When evaluating a job offer, benefits are difficult to evaluate in terms of dollars and cents.  It's better to have compensation in dollars where possible then the job and salary become the considerations.

If the employee doesn't buy health insurance, the employer could withhold sick leave benefits or they could leave it up the government since it's illegal not carry health insurance.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 16, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


I thought your subsidy was only for companies with less than 200 employees.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Jan 16, 2014)

Your 'doing things the way they'd always been done' statement isn't true. Before Reagan changed the HMO act effectively eliminating competition in the insurance industry, companies would regularly provide healthcare for their employees because it was cheap. I know this because I wrote the checks. Today, healthcare is expensive and generally not affordable to individuals. Companies are subsidized for providing healthcare insurance (which all should be doing) and not raising net by letting taxpayers do it.



OnePercenter said:


> ]


[/QUOTE]

Ugh, I had a good response then lost it when I tried to post the link to the US Census Bureau. I was young and, although I thought I was, not very well informed. I don't remember it being that much more common.  In 1997, the percentage of firms offering health insurance was 66% compared to 61% in 2012. The highest was 69% in 2010 and the lowest 59% in both 2007 and 2009. It hasn't changed much year to year and bounces up and down. That data is from Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Based Benefits 2012.  I also looked at US Census info for same but only found to 2010. The Census used 15 and older so showed 46.4% in 1997 and 41.4 in 2010. The changes seemed to jive so I used Kaiser for the most recent data. The Census did show an increase in participation by 5% of employees from 1997 to 2010 due to eligibility but decreases in employee participation of 5% due to choice and other.

I still think we should remove the employer from the equasion. It can still be a benefit for them to contribute to your personal plan, but I'd much prefer the individual make those coverage choices.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 17, 2014)

Flopper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It is. Why would a company with 200 or more employees need a subsidy?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 17, 2014)

Benefit: Billions in increased sales tax revenue.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 18, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Benefit: Billions in increased sales tax revenue.



Benefit: You don't have to shop at Walmart anymore!


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 1, 2014)

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 1, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



How are you going to get the rest of the world to back their prices back to 2009 and hold them there for 10 years?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



If you want to fix the economy, as in get it working again, just get out of the way. People will naturally do what's in their best interest and that will push the economy forward.

If you want to fix the economy, as in prevent it from having children... well your method might work then.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 1, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



They won't have a choice.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 1, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I don't think we are as important as you seem to think we are. The rest of the world will be just fine if we become some mediocre power. They don't care. They don't think we are special. Someone else will step up in our absence, one of them, and the world keep plodding forward, while we step back into 2009 ... and stay there till 2025.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Which is why you will fail. You cannot compel to follow you. You can only persuade them to. If you force people to do what you want, the second they have a chance, they will rebel. But if you get people to go along with you voluntarily because it's in their interests, you'll have the power to do much good.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



And my guess is that the people who argued for them in the 1970's thought they had a handle on it too.

There's a real problem with trying to control our economy this way.  It is far to large and complex.  The failure of Obamacare to this point and the all the unrealized promises (and in fact...things going in the opposite direction) only point out that anytime you try to fool with the economy to achieve an end.....it only comes back to bite you.

The real answer is to take government away as a means of power grabbing by the uber rich.

And you've never answered why we are obligated to raise the minimum wage or even have one at all.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Benefit: Billions in increased sales tax revenue.
> ...



Nobody has to shop at Walmart now.

Just what do you think is going on out there ?


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



You have data on how much it costs to make a big mac or run a McDonald's.  Please share.  

That or retract the post.

What does economics tell you.  It tells you that if McDonalds was raking it in with profits on big macs, there would be competitors show up to go after those margins.  Have they showed up ?  Yes.  Does that mean they are all raking it in ?  Not hardly.  Anytime you have competition (legally), you'll have low prices.

So, the only way McDonalds can sustain this is if they have some kind of advantage.  Please explain to us how your statements are justified in terms of specific costs and the advantages McDonald's enjoys.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2014)

oldfart said:


> I've been having this debate with my son.  There is no real evidence that increases in the minimum wage on the scale of past increases is inflationary.  But there are two caveats:
> 1.  If you take the position that future increases will also not be inflationary, you are relying on the substitution effect replacing low cost labor as a mechanism to get there.  So you really can't argue that low wage employment will be unaffected, especially for large changes.
> 2.  Data from smaller stepped changes might not apply to larger changes (like to $15 per hour).
> 
> Overall, I support an increase to say $15 an hour in stages and indexing to the CPI.  But I'm not arguing there will be no employment effects, just that as part of a program for economic growth such an increase would play a positive role.



I don't have the data in hand, but from what I recall there are no many people working at minimum wage.  That tells you that competition is driving wages up and that the current mnimum wage isn't an issue.

I suspect that if you raise it to the point that you've exceeded the current market value of labor on a substantial basis...you'll see inflation.

Rasing it to 23 an hour is surely going do some damage as that is 45,000/year.  That is almost a 3X increase.


----------



## driveby (Feb 2, 2014)

I'll take things whacked out moonbat Marxists say for $200 Alex.


Answer:




OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...





Question:

How could one destroy the economy faster than Obama and the democrats of today?.......


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



Nearly all of those would be horrible.   And it's so obviously bad, it's hard to believe you would even post something like this.   Worse yet, the damage of most of these would be compounded by the others.

So let's triple the cost of labor, with a insanely high minimum wage.
Then let's eliminate tax deductions, write offs, write-downs, thus drastically increasing cost on business.
Then let's lower prices.
Then let's force the sell off of all off-shore investments, thus eliminating that source of revenue for our companies.

So costs to business go up.  Taxes on business go up.  Revenue from goods sold goes down.   Revenue from off-shore investments go down.

Do you know what happens next?   Half the business throughout the country go bankrupt.   Hundred million people or so, end up unemployed.   The US sinks to 3rd world status in a matter of years.

Bad plan.  Stupid plan.   Need to learn some economics, and then rethink your entire position.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...


Wages are a cost.
Explain which of your conflicting proposals takes precedent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



They begged BofA to buy CountryWide.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 2, 2014)

Eliminate "business subsidies"? Sadly the substandard union based education system has produced a generation who think all money belongs to the government and they only let us use it for a little while.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 2, 2014)

Androw said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...


I  agree, however I support an increase in the minimum wage. The better approach to minimum wage is to pass a moderate raise and then index it to inflation.  10 states are doing this now.  The advantages should be obvious.  

It provides business with a planning a tool.  As it is now, businesses  are guessing each year what the legislature will do with minimum wage next year and how it will effect them.

Minimum wage is a political football in about 40 state legislatures as well as congress.  We waste too much time and effort fighting the same battle over and over.  Better to set it to a reasonable amount, index it, and move on.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 3, 2014)

Androw said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



Why don't you read the plan.  Costs of supplies to businesses would goes down. Taxes for businesses are eliminated. Hundreds of millions would be spending more in businesses which would increase business revenues, sales tax revenue, and GDP. Businesses would need more workers, not only to off-set taxes, but because of increased business.

Who cares about off-shore profits.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Who is 'they'?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 3, 2014)

alan1 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



I've eliminated employee costs, 100% for small business with up to 200 employees.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 3, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Back in 2009, Greece was projected by both their own economists, and the World Bank (if I remember right), that their unemployment would go down.

At that time, they also decided to increase their minimum wage, and index it to inflation.

At that time, I predicted openly, on a different forum than this, that not only would unemployment in Greece not go down, but it would actually reverse, and go higher than ever before.

Not only did unemployment go up, but so did inflation, and the entire economy suffered.... so badly that in 2012 they drafted a complete reversal of their policy, cutting the minimum wage.
Greece Draft Cuts Minimum Wage 20% - Bloomberg

The problem with all the minimum wage arguments, goes back to the fundamental basis of all business.   The difference between the cost of production, and the value of production.

The value of labor, doesn't generally change.   A burger at Wendy's is not worth more to me the customer, just because you want to pay the burger flipper $20/hr.   The end result is either that the employee will be replaced with a machine, or the business will close.

Similarly, if I want to have someone mow my lawn, there is some point where the cost of having that done, exceeds the value of having it done.  If someone offer's to mow my lawn for $30, that might be worth it.   But if the government steps in, and says by decree, that I must pay $100 per mow, that would not be worth it.   I could buy my own mower, and a years worth of fuel, for the cost of one mow.

In fact, for a $100 a mow, twice a month, I could instead buy a lawnbot, and have the robot replace the worker, and still not have to mow my lawn myself.

The value of the labor doesn't change.  What changes is the price.   When the price exceeds the value, you end up with people unemployed, and possibly replaced by machines.

McDonald's France...
McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET
over 7,000 cashiers, replaced by kiosks.   In a country, that has a 26% unemployment rate.

Plenty of labor.  If they could pay a wage comparative to the value of the labor, those 7,000 people would have jobs.   But because of government laws and regulations, the cost of labor is too high, and thus they are replaced by machine.

There is a reason that McDonald's built that 100% automated store in California.  They can see this coming.

So back to the main point.   Raising the minimum wage kills jobs.  Always has, always will.   There is no economic benefit.  Simply does not exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Costs of supplies to businesses would goes down. *

How?

*Taxes for businesses are eliminated. *

Labor costs are much more than taxes for the vast majority of businesses.

*Businesses would need more workers, not only to off-set taxes*

You'll have to explain what this means.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



The Fed and Treasury.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Just look at how great it works in Venezuela.

At markets, Chavez successor falls short - The Washington Post

Wrong story, sorry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Funny, you really didn't because current tax law already does exactly what you are proposing, yet business still have employee related expenses. That is because, despite your delusional beliefs in magic money, the real world doesn't have expenses that disappear simply because someone posts stupidity on a message board.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 3, 2014)

So, everyone still looking for the answer?

Here it is:


42


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2014)

Androw said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...


Without minimum wage, wages will sink to their economic worth to the business. So if a business can have the same work done in a third world country for $1/hr, it will pay $1/hr or something close to it to US workers.  If a living wage is $11/hr, where does the money come from to support that worker and his family?

The idea that wages should float without any government intervention is to put American workers in direct competition with workers in third world countries. The end result would be most everyone would have a job and a government subsidy.  It would be a boon for business because in effect government would be subsidizing  most of the salary for low income workers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The old "If the government doesn't fix it we are doomed" argument, how original.

Tell me something, how is McDonald's, KFC, or Pizza Hut, going to move their cooking to those third world countries? Do they have Star Trek transporters? Magic mushrooms? Hypersonic rocket planes?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...


If the lack of minimum wages laws is so great why are the 5 states that have no minimum wage laws among our poorest states in the nation, Mississippi, #50, Louisiana #49, Alabama $47, Tennessee #40, and Georgia #38. 9 of the 10 wealthiest states have minimum wage at or higher than the federal minimum wage.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 4, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



If they want to sell products to the USA they will. Besides, how much could prices have increased since BushCo/Republicans/wall street crashed the world economy?

You also have to consider that the lowest paid full-time employee in the US will be making $48k/yr, which will buy a bunch of their crap.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



If I had to take a guess I would say it is because you are delusional. 

The fact that those five states do not have minimum wage laws does not mean that the federal mini9mum wage laws do not apply in those states. 



> The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards        Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have        minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections;        employers must comply with both.



http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm

Here is the applicable section of the US Code.



> Every employer shall pay to each of his employees  who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods  for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in  the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following rates:
> (1)             except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than                                                (A)                 $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007;
> (B)                 $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
> (C)                 $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;



29 U.S. Code Â§ 206 - Minimum wage | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now that I have established that, despite your delusions and/or lies, that every single person that works at any business in the US is covered by federal minimum wage laws you can no longer claim that the lack of a minimum wage law is to blame for the lack of rich people in the states you listed. 

I guess that puts the ball back in your court, so I will repeat my question, how is McDonald's, KFC, or Pizza Hut, going to move their cooking to  those third world countries? Do they have Star Trek transporters? Magic  mushrooms? Hypersonic rocket planes?

I do have another question. Since I have proven that you are completely wrong about the lack of a minimum wage making things really bad, is it remotely possible that I am right?


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 4, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Hate to tell you this sparky, but NO state in the US has NO minimum wage law. Oh they may not have a state law, but in that case the federal limit applies.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 4, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No in fact you are COMPLETELY wrong in your belief that the government shouldn't dictate a minimum wage.

The reason being is that because in this country we are not going to allow people who are working to starve simply because employers don't want to pay reasonable wages, instead we will supplement those wages with welfare. 

The ONLY question is where do we draw the line? Personally I don't think it's right at all that people are getting rich while their employees get MY tax dollars to supplement their low wages, apparently you think that its okay.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Of course federal law applies to all states but there are five states that have no minimum wage law so minimum wage in those states are fixed at the lowest rate in the country.

Louisiana has passed a law prohibiting any state or local government from establishing a minimum wage. Louisiana Rev. Stat. 23:642. 
Louisiana - Wage and Hour Laws | Employment Law HandbookEmployment Law Handbook

You will find no state minimum wage laws for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, an Tennessee.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 4, 2014)

42!


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Of course the federal minimum wage applies to all states.  The point is that the 5 states without minimum wage laws have the federal minimum wage, the  lowest minimum wage in the country, high poverty rates, and a heavy dependence on state and federal welfare dollars.  Low minimum wages reduce cost to employers and increase costs to the tax payers.  The lower the minimum wage the more dependent families become on welfare, food stamps, and medicaid.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 4, 2014)

Androw said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



If you look at the unemployment rates in relation to federal minimum wage increases you will see that you are looking at about a 2% higher unemployment rate in the year the raise is implemented and that rebounds the very next year. Meaning there is negligible affect.

Oh sure, jobs are traded. McDonalds will go from needing burger flippers to needing burger flipping machine techs, but the jobs are still there.

Your is just another lame excuse to keep the minimum wage depressed below where it should be.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 4, 2014)

Dear One Percenter:

For your model, you are better off setting up your own business network
run on bartering, and see the natural cost of maintaining the businesses
and managing the exchanges.

THEN you can ADJUST your structure to match practical reality.

Paul Glover of Ithaca HOURS has seen the difference between what
makes a sustainable local economy last, and why they fail.  He says it
takes one full time person PAID to do the managing between the
cooperating member businesses.

So if you are the paid point person, you can set up your own cooperative
and see if it can work on 23.50 per hour.  But your job is always going to be different.
These are not going to be equal.

He has seen sustainable systems work at 10.00 per labor hour
with an exception for doctors and lawyers that needed to be paid more credits  per hour
due to added licensing and operating costs regulated by government.

You can learn from his system what works and what doesn't,
to add to and refine your own model. Including why people can't be paid all the same.

No one here is going to convince you otherwise.
You'd have to experience it for yourself, like Paul Glover did when setting up 
independent currency cooperatives for local communities,
and Ben & Jerry when the executives tried to equalize the pay structure as 
much as possible, but found there was a limit. They couldn't even get the
pay rates within the projected range of each other, much less all the same
without the company finances falling apart. You might want to research
other people who have done close to what you are asking, and see what interferes.


----------



## Intense (Feb 4, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



It seems pretty drastic and draconian. Why not just a simple 3 or 4 tiered Flat Tax? 
You want to up the minimum wage? how about killing the subsidies then for those that are employed. Why not try to address the actual cash value of all that is redistributed by various Government entities that make up for the low minimum wage?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2014)

Intense said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...


How can it be a flat tax if it has 4 tiers?  That sounds like a progressive tax.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The point is that only 20 states have a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage. Of the remaining 32 states 24 have wage laws that are equal to, but not greater than, the federal law. You should read your link, all the information is there.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Feb 4, 2014)

Here here flat tax. Bring it. I don't know why stat( and maybe he has or someone else has) doesn't tell us what a family of four can get that only makes min wage in benes. I have heard in ny it is 70 grand a year, my experience in fla is in the mid thirties and that may be if you don't work at all.

I have to laugh at the new argument that people like Bill Maher make that they are tired of paying for welfare so supposedly other people( mostly repubs of course) can get rich. Does that mean that I have a choice of what wasteful programs I don't want my tax dollars to go to. And it's his party that set all this stuff up in the first place. Let me think, who pays the most in taxes to support the welfare state? Oh yeah that's right the rich guys. A lot of this stuff is like the starvation debate. I don't see anyone starving and I don't see anyone in chains and tattered clothes eating gruel and trying to throw off the yoke of economic domination.

On a brighter note, is it not time to put all our esteemed number crunchers and research personnel to work? Yes I am previously indisposed. I can't remember the name but in technology there is the law of computer power doubling every eighteen months or so. Can the message board seal team not come up with a law defining how welfare benefits expand every election cycle or ten years or whatever at a very predictable rate.?
I can see it now, US Message Boards, Discussion with Repercussion

How about troll races? ( SLAP! shrimpbox get a hold of yourself)


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2014)

Shrimpbox said:


> Here here flat tax. Bring it. I don't know why stat( and maybe he has or someone else has) doesn't tell us what a family of four can get that only makes min wage in benes. I have heard in ny it is 70 grand a year, my experience in fla is in the mid thirties and that may be if you don't work at all.
> 
> I have to laugh at the new argument that people like Bill Maher make that they are tired of paying for welfare so supposedly other people( mostly repubs of course) can get rich. Does that mean that I have a choice of what wasteful programs I don't want my tax dollars to go to. And it's his party that set all this stuff up in the first place. Let me think, who pays the most in taxes to support the welfare state? Oh yeah that's right the rich guys. A lot of this stuff is like the starvation debate. I don't see anyone starving and I don't see anyone in chains and tattered clothes eating gruel and trying to throw off the yoke of economic domination.
> 
> ...


It's called Moore's Law which is not really a law but rather an observation.  It should hold up until 2015 or 2020 when transistor counts and densities are to double only every three years.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Feb 4, 2014)

See you guys are on it already. What an incredible thing to think about, is there no limit to how small they can go?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Who cares?   You realize that during the down turn, many of our domestic businesses were kept afloat by off-shore revenue?
*
Think about it like diversification.    Why do people invest in mutual funds, instead of single stocks?   Because of diversification.   If you have all your money tied up in a single company, and that company crashes, you end up broke.   If you invest in a mutual fund that buys stock in hundreds of companies, and one company fails, you don't lose much, because the other 99 companies are not all failing at the exact same time.   Thus your investment is safer.

Right?   Well as a company, if you have all your investment, 100% of it tied up in one single economy, and that one single economy crashes, then your company goes bankrupt and is gone.    Whereas, if you invest in several economies, and one goes bad, the others do well.

GM Asia is making a profit right now, as is GM America, whereas GM Europe is in the red right now.

Do not foolishly assume that if you prevented international investment, that the American economy will never have a recession again. 

We will, no matter what policy we put and place, and when that recession happens, you will want foreign investments keeping domestic companies alive.

*Back to taxes and Business.*

I went back and re-read the plan you described.  The way it was written, does not indicate you intended to eliminate taxes on business.

However even so, you don't really mean that even now.  I know you don't, because you have said numerous times in other threads that you support the income tax.    Well the biggest tax on business..... *IS* the income tax.

The vast majority of businesses in America today (and the world), are all sole proprietorships.     What that means is, there is one dude who owns the business.   There is no "company money" and "personal money".    If I own a lawn car business, every dollar the business earns, is my earnings.

So if I earn $80,000, I have to pay income taxes on my business earnings, because they are *MY* earnings.

Thus.... if you say you want to eliminate business deductions, and business write-offs, and business write downs... such as the deduction for the depreciation of my lawn care business equipment....  You are increasing my taxes, which are taxes on my business.   I have less money to keep my business going, less money to grow it, less money to hire people, and so on.

*But let's even suggest that possibly you just mean to eliminate corporate taxes.*

This still won't do any good.   The harm you are doing, will far out weight the minor benefits.

Let's say that I'm CEO of Lawn Corp.   We do business mowing lawns.   Now let's say that we charge $40 to mow a lawn, and we pay the employee $20 to mow each lawn.   That's $20 profit.

Now there are a few tax on business operations, but most taxes are on profits.    So let's say that corporate taxes are 50%, and I lose $10 of the $20 in taxes, and profit $10 for every lawn mowed.

Now you come along, and double the cost of labor, but eliminate corporate taxes.

Sounds good.   So now the cost of labor is $40.   So I charge $40, pay out $40, and end up with $0 profit.    But at least my taxes are lower on that profit..... oh wait... there is no profit!

So what happens now is, without profit, I have no retained earnings to repair the lawn mower.   When the mower breaks, the job is over, the company is closed, and the employee is now unemployed.

See, you can cut all the taxes in the world, and that won't help if you drive up the cost of labor.   Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.

But if you push other policies that eliminate those earned profits, all the tax cuts in the world do not make up for that.

So even with your new updated plan, it still won't work.  You will still ruin the entire economy, and destroy jobs and doom the US to a 3rd world status.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



First off, the "living wage" is a myth.  That's all it is.   It's just a subjective made up number, that some just arbitrarily decided.   I know this, because you can read the stories of people who earned, and survived, on far less than whatever made up number you come up with.

I know a guy right now, who worked at McDonald's for $4.25, and raised a family of 4 on it, with a wife who didn't work.   You can live on very very little.

Now this guy ended up moving up.   He got a better job, and then worked his way up from there, and now makes a decent living.

Here's the difference.   Minimum wage jobs, are not "jobs to live on" unless you choose to.   It's up to *YOU* to get a better job.   And there are many many better jobs.

Question is, do you want to be unemployed, earning zero, or unemployed earning something?     Because if you drive up the minimum wage, you'll be replaced with a kiosk, just like in France, and then you'll be unemployed earning zero.   Is that a "livable wage" in your world?  Zero?

And the idea that wages will sink until oblivion is just false.   Look at Norway.   Norway has ZERO minimum wage.   The employees at McDonald's in Norway, earn about $15/hr.   Because that's the market there.

Why is the market for that labor higher than the US?   Because Norwegians move up.   They don't just sit there earning $5/hr for the rest of their lives.  They get a degree, and get a job that pays more.   Because the supply of low-skilled labor is lower, the price for that labor is higher.

We can do the same thing here.  If we have more people getting higher value skills, and the supply of low-skilled labor declined, the market itself would push up wages, without any minimum wage required.

Instead stupid Americans, sit on their butt, with a sign, "I deserve a 'livable wage'" and wait for someone to get them more money, instead of learning something of value that pays more.

Worse, you don't seem to grasp that every time the minimum wage goes up, the cost of living goes up.    The minimum wage is a driver of inflation.   I was actually working at Wendy's when the minimum age increase hit, back in the 90s.  The first thing Wendy's did was lay off three people.  The second thing they did, was increase their prices.

Minimum wage kills jobs, and increases prices.   Thus every time you increase the minimum wage toward the supposed "livable wage", the "livable wage" suddenly gets higher.    Because the costs of living go up with the minimum wage.

In 2009 after the minimum wage hit $7.25, suddenly everyone started complaining about how the cost of food went up, and produce at the stores got more expensive, and so on.    Hello!   Connection???

And as far as subsidizing the salary of low-wage workers, the solution is to stop subsidizing.   That will give low-wage workers the incentives to move on.  Get a skill, or education that has more value in the market, and get a job that pays better.

You can't force the value of labor up.   A cheap fast food burger is not worth $20, just because you want to raise the minimum wage.   That's why McDonald's is replacing employees with Kiosks.     We the customer are not paying that much for a cheap burger.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

Flopper said:


> If the lack of minimum wages laws is so great why are the 5 states that have no minimum wage laws among our poorest states in the nation, Mississippi, #50, Louisiana #49, Alabama $47, Tennessee #40, and Georgia #38. 9 of the 10 wealthiest states have minimum wage at or higher than the federal minimum wage.



Kind of irrelevant, given the Federal Minimum wage is still in effect in Mississippi.

Crew Jobs, Employment in Hattiesburg, MS | Indeed.com


> McDonald's - Hattiesburg, MS - +2 locations
> We have two types of crew positions available:. service and production. Service employees will take customer's order ad payment, assemble and present order to... $7.25 - $7.75 an hour



So McDonald's is still paying $7.25 to $7.75 starting rate, in MS, where there is no minimum wage....    Seems to indicate that not having a state minimum wage, is meaningless when there is a Federal Minimum wage.

As for wealthy states....   That is also a bit irrelevant.

Take North Dakota right now.   Booming economy.  2.3% unemployment rate.   Wages are rising without a minimum wage increase, because it's a booming economy.

Crew Jobs, Employment in North Dakota | Indeed.com


> Crew Person, Evening Shift
> McDonald's - Grand Forks, ND
> Hours: 5-1am Pay: $8.50-$9.00 If your a night person then this is the job for you. Work while having fun. We are looking for hard working, enthusiastic... $8.50 - $9.00 an hour
> 9 days ago - save job - email - more...



Same exact job, same exact minimum wage, yet wages are higher.   Why?    Because there is greater demand for labor in a booming economy, and the supply of unemployed laborers is lower.   The market is pushing up wages.

Now here's the key.   Some smart sly politicians could stand up in ND, and push raising the minimum wage to $8/hr.     They know they could do this, and gain support from the mindless left, and at the same time do no harm to the economy, because the market has already pushed up low-wage labor beyond $8.

Then you would come on here and say "Look! North Dakota is wealthy, and a higher minimum wage didn't hurt anything!"

But the minimum wage didn't cause the economic boom.   Plus, when the boom is over, and every economy has cycles, then when wages are prevented from falling because of the minimum wage, people lose their jobs, and unemployment is high.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> If they want to sell products to the USA they will. Besides, how much could prices have increased since BushCo/Republicans/wall street crashed the world economy?
> 
> You also have to consider that the lowest paid full-time employee in the US will be making $48k/yr, which will buy a bunch of their crap.



First off, Bush/Wall St, didn't crash the economy alone.  The start of the sub-prime mortgage boom, was in 1997, when Freddie pushed banks to make bad loans, and Clinton, sued banks to make bad loans.

But beyond this...  I don't understand how people can say stuff like this.

If you drive up labor costs, and drive down prices, economic ruin is the outcome.

In Venezuela, they tried exactly this plan.   They increased the cost of labor, and put in place price controls.

Result?







The sign above the empty shelves says "Made with Socialism". (rough translation).

What part of this, is hard to grasp?    Price controls always result in shortages.   Always have.   By the way... notice on that shelf, it's coffee filters.... but no coffee.    No coffee..... in Venezuela.   Think about that.   No coffee in Venezuela.

The number one cost in nearly any business, is labor.   There are few exceptions.   Like oil markets, where you buy and sell multimillion dollar contracts, and pay the sales rep a $100K a year to do it.

But the biggest cost in making a car, is labor costs.  The biggest cost making a cheese burger at Wendy's is labor costs.

So here you are going to more the double labor costs, and at the same time prevent business from passing on that cost to consumers, and the result is, Venezuela.  Empty shelves.  Over a Million people have fled Venezuela in the past 5 years, and they only have a population of 29 million.

You plan, is a plan to make American into 3rd world country.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> No in fact you are COMPLETELY wrong in your belief that the government shouldn't dictate a minimum wage.
> 
> The reason being is that because in this country we are not going to allow people who are working to starve simply because employers don't want to pay reasonable wages, instead we will supplement those wages with welfare.
> 
> The ONLY question is where do we draw the line? Personally I don't think it's right at all that people are getting rich while their employees get MY tax dollars to supplement their low wages, apparently you think that its okay.



But see, right now if we didn't have a minimum wage, the unemployment rate would be cut in half, or lower.

Minimum wage ALWAYS kills jobs.

You tell me which is better.... working for something, or working for NOTHING?    Is an hourly wage of ZERO better?

Because that's what you get with minimum wage.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Well.... those people are unemployed.   It might rebound the next year.... great, what do I do until then?

If you raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, I'm sure I'd be unemployed.   Telling me unemployment will rebound next year, isn't going to help me much.

Further, you don't know how that rebound came about.   Was the economy already booming?   Was the economy already on the rebound?

Then what happens when you kills jobs in an economy not rebounding?  Make it worse?

Do you even know for certain that the reason unemployment went down, was because they found jobs in that economy?   What if the reason unemployment went back down, is because people found jobs elsewhere and moved?  What if they simply left the job market completely?

See, again, the best way to look at unemployment, is from the perspective of other countries where the labor rates have been higher, for longer.   Take France.   France has had a double digit unemployment for decades.   Youth unemployment, has been in the 20% area for decades too.

Is that really the route we want to go?  I don't think so.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



um because that's a ridiculous proposition that has no place in serious conversation?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



LOL.

Leftist-   "Let's make the minimum wage $20/hr."

Economist-  "No, because the minimum wage kills jobs and harms the economy"

Leftist-   "No the minimum wage does not harm the economy, and has no negative effects"

Economist-  "You can't be serious.  If you believe that, why not have the minimum wage $100/hr?"

Leftist-   "Der..... because that's a ridiculous proposition that has no place in serious conversation?"



Look.... either the minimum wage has negative effects.... or why not just make it whatever you want?  Why not $200/hr?   Or why not $1,000 an hour?

Oh, because it does have negative effects, and if you drive up the price of labor, no one will hire anybody.

So the question is simply a matter of the degree to how much the negative effect is from the minimum wage.

Or.... you are denying there is a negative effect, and we should just raise the minimum wage to $200K a year for everyone!   No negative effect, let's all live the life of the wealthy.

It's either one or the other.  Pick one, but don't sit there waffling, and acting incredulous for us to follow YOUR logic to it's conclusion.   Either the minimum wage has negative effects, or it doesn't.   Pick one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 5, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



Where, exactly does it stop being serious? Why is $10.10 serious, but $15 a joke? How does $4.90 put that number into whackadoodle territory? How can ignorant jerks, like me, understand the difference?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 6, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear One Percenter:
> 
> For your model, you are better off setting up your own business network
> run on bartering, and see the natural cost of maintaining the businesses
> ...



All of which has nothing to do with my plan. My plan simply moves an existing business expense (total taxes and fees) into the pockets of their employees for an immediate increase in spending in the local economy.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 6, 2014)

Intense said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



Whats 'pretty drastic and draconian' about moving the base for all wages to equal price increases?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 6, 2014)

Androw said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 dropping employee costs to $24.02 which is then 100% subsidized for companies with 200 or less employees. 

Let's figure out net. $40.00 - $10.00 = $30.00 - $3.00 for equipment maintenance = $27.00 per lawn.



> Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.



Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00 *

Ummmm, if your revenue is $40.00 and your employees expenses are $34.02, your profit is $5.98. You also have equipment costs for trucks, mowers and gasoline.

Your profit is much, much less than $5.98. Why would you pay $10.00 in tax?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Dear One Percenter:
> ...



How many times do people have to explain to you that, under current tax law, all expenses that go toward salaries and benefits for employees are already deductible?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Because math is hard.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



For Toddsterpatriot and you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is that why you feel corporations pay tax on revenue, not profit, because you're so good at math?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 7, 2014)

Are y'all now just totally sure of the answer, since the question was actually never asked?


Here:


42!


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 7, 2014)

You are assuming it will take one worker one hour, clock in to clock out, per lawn. That's not gonna happen, and now you are losing money. You fork over personal money to make payroll or you fold.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 7, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I never wrote that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Sure you did.

*So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.

Your taxes on the $40.00 is $10.00*


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 7, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You mean the mock lawn company where I explained how my plan works?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Yes, the one where you claimed taxes are charged on revenue.
The idiotic claim that I am mocking.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 14, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Off-shore monies are tax shelters. Why would a company repatriate non-taxed monies to keep afloat?



First, that's false.  Profits made in off-shore investments, are taxed by the country in which they were made.

Second.... why would they bring back off-shore profits to stay afloat?    Either you didn't state your question correctly, or that's not a very smart question.   Like saying "why would I empty out my European bank account in order to avoid losing my home to foreclosure?"  Durr... cause I don't want to lose my home? 



> People invest in mutual funds because they don't understand investing and rely on someone else.



Yeah.   That's a supportable claim.  Go prove that one.



> I never wrote 'foreign investments', I wrote off-shore.



Same difference.   What do you think they are doing with it?     Companies don't move money out of the country pointlessly.   There's a reason.  It's to gain an investment somewhere else.

What exactly do you think they are doing?    You can't just earn money and not pay taxes, because you sent the money to the Holland.    If you could, and it was cheap to do, we'd all be doing that.  I'd be doing that.

They are paying taxes on that money.   They just want to grow an investment outside the US, because there are some really good investments off-shore.



> A sole proprietor is nothing more than a self-employed person. Nothing changes. If you hire employees, you should change you status to an LLC, or for piecework such as you're eluding at, a 10-99 employee.



Huh?   LLCs, act the same as sole proprietorships (unless they specifically elect to be a C corporation).   They are not "corporations" under the tax code, and do not have income tax.

If I own a lawn care business, and place it in an LLC, it's still my sole proprietor business.  I am tax directly on my earning from the LLC.  There is no corporate tax on an LLC.   Thus all tax deductions denied my business, are denied me.  I end up paying more taxes on my income, which is the business income.



> Not so. If a business off-sets 1 to 1 taxes with employees costs, doesn't that effectively eliminate taxes?
> 
> So let me help you understand. Your revenue is $40.00 for a lawn. Your employees makes $23.50/hr + $3.00/hr for benefits + 32% (comp, employers side of FICA, local taxes) = $34.02.
> 
> ...



No.   You don't pay taxes on 'revenue' under the current system.     When the customer pays $40 for the lawn cut, we don't pay $10 in taxes on that $40.  You pay taxes on the 'profit'.  You pay taxes on the profit after you take out the cost of operating.

But let's say that under your system, you pay taxes on revenue......
Your math is wacky, or you failed miserably to explain it right.   If you tax me $10 for $40 in revenue, and the employee cost is 24.02, and then add $3 for equipment maintenance....   That leaves only $3 profit.

And your $3 for equipment is hilarious.  For a standard quality push mower, we're talking $150 to replace.     $3 would barely cover the gasoline, let alone a replacement mower.     And to do a commercial lot, a commercial mower is upwards of $6K.

But the bottom line is, if I'm only making $3 profit from mowing lawns, that's a bad investment on my part as the company owner.  I should close the company down, lay everyone off, and go do something else with my money.



> Not so. Corporate taxes only account for 10% of the whole. Under my plan, payroll and sales taxes will skyrocket, thus making up for the loss plus.



That doesn't make sense.    You want to cut employee costs, but increasing pay roll taxes, and sales taxes?

If you drastically increase the cost of purchasing goods, while at the same time drastically cutting people's income, this is good for the economy how?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Under my plan the $10.00 tax is deductible 1 to 1 and the balance $24.02 is 100% subsidized leaving an employee net cost of $10.00 and a net employer profit of $30.00.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



How is a tax, tax deductible?
Are you stoned?

*leaving an employee net cost of $10.00 and a net employer profit of $30.00*

Now $40 in revenue only gives the employee $10 while the employer gets $30 and the government gets $0 in taxes?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Let's see:

Revenue $40.00 
Tax - $10.00
Employee cost - $34.02
Tax off-set + $10.00
Subsidy  + $24.02 
= $30.00 net to employer.

The government doesn't get $0, the employee is making $23.50/hr and is spending the money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Why even put the $10 tax number in there if you just give it back?

Now you have the employer charging $40, giving $10 to the worker and the government giving the worker $13.50.

Do you feel the worker pays enough in taxes to make up for the $13.50 handout (not to mention the employer's free ride)?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Let's see:
> 
> Revenue $40.00
> Tax - $10.00
> ...





State local taxes



> Now you have the employer charging $40, giving $10 to the worker and the government giving the worker $13.50.
> 
> Do you feel the worker pays enough in taxes to make up for the $13.50 handout (not to mention the employer's free ride)?



Corporate taxes amount to only 10% of the total take for the feds. On the other hand, you have tens of millions of workers making and spending a shit load more money. Think about it. Retailers making more. Sales tax revenue doubling/tripling. States wouldn't need as much Fed help.[/QUOTE]

*State local taxes*

Your silly idea is bad enough at the Federal level.
*
Corporate taxes amount to only 10% of the total take for the feds. *

Imagine how much less the feds will take in, when corporations pay 0% and the feds hand $13.50 an hour to employees.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Under your plan magic makes the world go round.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see:
> ...



*State local taxes*

Your silly idea is bad enough at the Federal level.
*
Corporate taxes amount to only 10% of the total take for the feds. *

Imagine how much less the feds will take in, when corporations pay 0% and the feds hand $13.50 an hour to employees.[/QUOTE]



Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Neither one of you can refute my post. It seems the Republicans are dumbing down America.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 23, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...





Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Neither one of you can refute my post. It seems the Republicans are dumbing down America.[/QUOTE]

Refute? LOL!
You want to give the evil employers a tax free profit margin of 75% and you'd like the government to hand the employee $13.50 per hour.
Which part of your idiocy would you like me to refute?
I'd think it refutes itself.

Your stupidity has nothing to do with Republicans.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Refute? LOL!
You want to give the evil employers a tax free profit margin of 75% and you'd like the government to hand the employee $13.50 per hour.
Which part of your idiocy would you like me to refute?
I'd think it refutes itself.

Your stupidity has nothing to do with Republicans.[/QUOTE]

1.  I'm returning tax monies back to the workers and giving small business a helping hand. 

2. Businesses will continue paying taxes, although with my plan they write-off 100% dollar for dollar. 

What's wrong with that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 23, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> 1.  I'm returning tax monies back to the workers and giving small business a helping hand.
> 
> 2. Businesses will continue paying taxes, although with my plan they write-off 100% dollar for dollar.
> 
> What's wrong with that?



*Businesses will continue paying taxes*

No they won't, not in your ridiculous example.
$40 revenue, $10 to the employee, $30 profit.

*I'm returning tax monies back to the workers *

That's for sure, you're handing $13.50 per hour, of someone elses taxes, to these workers.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  I'm returning tax monies back to the workers and giving small business a helping hand.
> ...



What about state and local tax?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Nothing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The Illinois business income tax is 7%.
Please, show me how that redeems your idiocy.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Under my plan it's deductible 1 to 1 on your federal form to off-set employee expenses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Why would they need to write off state taxes, you already have them paying 0% to the Feds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Under current law it is deductible.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All taxes and fees.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not 1 to 1.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Prove it.

Deducting Business Expenses


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Prove what?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Your claim that you can't deduct taxes, I gave you the link, it should be easy.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Again, not 1 to 1. Do you know what 1 to 1 means?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Again, prove it.

I gave you the link, show me.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If you have the link, look it up yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



He didn't post a link to your bad math. Try again?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



My math is correct. My plan brings the economy back. If you don't believe it does, then prove it, or shut it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I did, which is why I don't get your point. If you really know what you are talking about, show me how the current law, which says that all business expenses, including local and state taxes, are deductible, and your plan, in which taxes are deductible and money is magic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*My plan brings the economy back. *

Sure, giving corps a 75% profit margin while handing workers $13.50 an hour, from someone elses taxes, will do wonders for the economy.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You've proven nothing. The law doesn't allow business to deduct 1 to 1 from taxes owed. My plan does.

btw, there's nothing at all magic about my plan. The numbers remain the same as today, but the proceeds go to workers and small business.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, it gives small business (200 employees or less) the ability to compete with the big guys.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*The law doesn't allow business to deduct 1 to 1 from taxes owed. My plan does.*

Your plan already cut their Federal taxes to zero.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



By deducting employee expences 1 to 1. I have covered this before with you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



You must be talking to someone else. I never said I proved anything, I asked you to prove that there is a difference between your plan and current tax law as far as the deductions for taxes. So far, all you have done is keep repeating the same thing over and over, just like a chat bot.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You posted the link....Look it up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Exactly what you said before, you just failed the Turing test.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 27, 2014)

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



You haven't learned a thing in 215 posts, amazing.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...



I was think the same. Your inability to grasp a simple process change is remarkable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



Idiotic ideas....still idiotic.

Adjusting the 1970 minimum wage for inflation doesn't get you to $23.50.

Adjusting Social Security and pensions for CPI since 1970 will end up cutting benefits.

Price controls never work.

You can't force investors to bring back overseas funds. 

You can't stop them from investing overseas in the future.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2014)

*Returning more monies to the people and the states is idiotic? *

Your idea to have the federal government collect zero from corporations while paying workers $13.50 an hour out of taxpayer funds is idiotic.

*I contend that all three are more than 14 times higher today than in 1970*

Show me.

*Never has it been done this way. *

Every Communist says the same thing, "Communism works, they didn't do it the right way. Just watch me."

*Tax free? Really? One would be a fool if they didn't.*

Seeing your massive power grab over the economy, they'd be a fool to move one dollar closer to your grasping hands.

*I stated 'off-shore' which are tax haven/dodges.*

You've stated many ridiculous things. Is GM Ireland or Apple Ireland a tax dodge?


----------



## Imperious (Feb 28, 2014)

Why stop at $23.50/hr?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Returning more monies to the people and the states is idiotic? *
> 
> 1. Your idea to have the federal government collect zero from corporations while paying workers $13.50 an hour out of taxpayer funds is idiotic.
> 
> ...



1. The zero collection is for small business that employ 200 or less. The big guys will pay taxes, but less than they pay today.

2. It's been posted many times. Look it up.

3. Non-answer.

4. If the monies are tax free who's going to be 'grasping'? Besides, tax havens are getting harder and harder to find.

5. GM's near tax free status was the result of BushCo Treasury Department rulings.

Tax Free: GM Hasn't Paid Federal U.S. Income Tax Since Bankruptcy

Apple

Apple?s Tax Dodge Should Prompt Rethink in Ireland - Bloomberg View


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 28, 2014)

Imperious said:


> Why stop at $23.50/hr?



It won't, minimum wage is *base* for all salaries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Returning more monies to the people and the states is idiotic? *
> ...



*1. The zero collection is for small business that employ 200 or less. *

The majority of US workers are employed at firms with fewer than 200 employees.

*2. It's been posted many times. Look it up.*

I looked for your fake number. It wasn't there. Try again.

*3. Non-answer.*

That gets to the heart of your silliness.

*4. If the monies are tax free who's going to be 'grasping'?*

Your incredibly expensive $13.50/hour handout to employees will trump your "tax free" claim.

*Besides, tax havens are getting harder and harder to find.*

Earnings retained in another country makes that country a tax haven?

*5. GM's near tax free status was the result of BushCo Treasury Department rulings.*

GM earnings in Europe were treated differently before or after Bush? Prove it.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> Everything you've asked I've answered. You seem to be aphasic to that.



Not even close. 

GM had off-shore monies in Europe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I can't find proof that prices rose by 14 times.

Seems you can't either.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 1, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off&#8217;s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> ...



You said that before, and it didn't make sense then either.

The minimum wage in 1970, adjusted to inflation to 2013, is not $23.  At most it would be $9.50.

Further, if allow a $1 to $1 deduction for employee expenses, then you would end up with zero tax on business.   Instead, just eliminate business tax.  Why make things stupid complicated, for no purpose?

Of course the Federal Government has no right, or authority to dictate to States, or Cities, that they must allow a tax break for employee expenses.  So your plan is automatically DOA.    As long as we still have a Constitution, your plan simply can't happen, without a Dictatorship.

You have no business telling me, how much my private retirement pays out.  So scratch that.

As far as adjusting Socialist Security to 1970 pay scale, that sounds wonderful.   Understand you'll be cutting millions of people's retirement, and health care under Medicare and Medicaid will be virtually eliminated.  I'm all for it.  Let people handle their own health care, and their own retirement.   Sounds great to me.

Hundreds, if not thousands of companies that survived the downturn, will be wiped out by eliminating off-shore investment.   I told you that before, and you didn't get it.   Many many companies, were able to keep afloat from foriegn investment income.   Income that wouldn't be there if you eliminated foreign investment.   You will end up wiping out thousands of jobs.

You can NOT back down prices to 2009 levels, without having massive shortages.   Not going to happen.

I'll give a simple example.   Take beef.   The average cost per pound of beef in 2009, was under $2.50.   Today it's over $3.50

If you back down prices to $2.50, you are going to end up with supply shortages.  Why?

The same reason that if you put your car on Craiglist, and someone offers you $2,000, and another offers you $3,500, you'll sell to the guy offering the higher price.

Beef, like nearly all commodities, is a global commodity.   The world price for Beef is up near $3.50, which is why it's $3.50 here.  If you put in price controls, who are the Beef companies going to sell to?   Mexico, Canada?  We already sell meat exports to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, and many others.

So you are the dude with the cattle.   You can sell in the US for $2.50, or internationally for $3.50+.    Who you going to sell to?   Obviously out of the US.   But then we'll have shortages... oh well.

All those stores, and restaurants, and butchers, and drivers transporting meat products,... all unemployed... all closed down.  Millions of people jobless.

This would repeat itself for everything from metal, to paper, to sand.  The entire country would have a massive economic crash.   This is what is happening right now in Venezuela.  Every product with price controls, is disappearing from the country, which is why Venezuela which formerly led Latin America economically, is not the worst performing economy.

And as I said before, driving up wages will kill jobs, and kill business.  No amount of deduction will solve that.

Socialism doesn't work.  Government control, doesn't work.  Your plan, won't work.


----------

