A Look at the Senate Democrats' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS

[Oldstyle]

Let me see if I can explain this SLOWLY for you, Daniel! Raising minimum wage would mean that ALL wages would also have to be raised to compensate those people who have job skills already and obviously aren't going to work for the same as someone who was just hired with no job skills. Supervisors are going to demand more. Managers are going to demand more. So now that you've increased labor costs for businesses what is their response going to be? THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE THEIR PRICES!!! So what have you really gained? The answer to that is...very little!

An upward pressure on wages. We want to lose, low wage jobs.

Why would you want to lose entry level jobs? Do you not grasp the importance of HAVING jobs where young people can learn about good work habits? Do you not understand that when you lose low wage jobs...you also lose any incentive for employers to hire those without job skills?

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

Saying that you want free markets to decide wages and prices isn't asking for socialism. It's also not a call to subsidize Capitalists.

 

[danielpalos]

An upward pressure on wages. We want to lose, low wage jobs.

Why would you want to lose entry level jobs? Do you not grasp the importance of HAVING jobs where young people can learn about good work habits? Do you not understand that when you lose low wage jobs...you also lose any incentive for employers to hire those without job skills?

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

That is what the right wing alleged, about the restaurants.

Less than five percent inflation, is what the right wing is complaining about.

Have you been in fast food restaurants lately, Daniel? Notice all of the self serve "kiosks"? Been to a Wal Mart? Notice all of the self serve check out "kiosks"? That's the Private Sector responding to just the threat of a higher minimum wage! Every single one of those automated stations means the loss of another entry level job. So what are you on the left doing to replace the jobs that your proposed policies are killing? Quite frankly...you don't seem to care! Which says volumes about liberals in general these days.

We don't care if we lose low wage jobs. Those jobs are subsidized, anyway, if they pay less than fourteen dollars an hour.

Who is "we"? Are you speaking for the people that have those jobs? They care. They care a lot. The question is why you don't care, Daniel? Why do liberals not care about young people and those without job skills getting started in the workplace? What are you going to replace those jobs with?

The right wing doesn't care. The minimum wage should be fifteen an hour.

Why $15 an hour? Why not $20? Hell, go to $30! According to your naive take on economics that should provide "Labor" with all kinds of spendable income! What was your major in college? Did you even take a class in economics? It sure doesn't appear that way.

If you had been paying attention, it is because social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

 

[danielpalos]

An upward pressure on wages. We want to lose, low wage jobs.

Why would you want to lose entry level jobs? Do you not grasp the importance of HAVING jobs where young people can learn about good work habits? Do you not understand that when you lose low wage jobs...you also lose any incentive for employers to hire those without job skills?

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

Saying that you want free markets to decide wages and prices isn't asking for socialism. It's also not a call to subsidize Capitalists.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you want to lose entry level jobs? Do you not grasp the importance of HAVING jobs where young people can learn about good work habits? Do you not understand that when you lose low wage jobs...you also lose any incentive for employers to hire those without job skills?

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

 

[jillian]

A few days ago, Senator Chuck Schumer and other leading Senate Democrats held a press conference to present their infrastructure and tax reform plan. The full title of the bill is SENATE DEMOCRATS' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS: RETURNING THE REPUBLICAN TAX GIVEAWAYS FOR THE WEALTHY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Dem plan is actually pretty good. It is only a tax-hike measure compared to the new tax rates under the Trump tax cuts. Compared to the tax rates that existed until last year, it calls for huge tax cuts, even for corporations, in spite of the bill's unfortunately partisan subtitle. If Hillary had proposed this plan during the election, Bernie supporters and other Dems would have skewered her for wanting to "give away hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich." Consider:

* The Dem plan would set the corporate income tax rate at 25%. This is 4 percentage points higher than the Trump rate of 21%, but it's 10 percentage points lower than what the rate was last year and for decades before that. When Mitt Romney proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% in 2012, Dems attacked the idea as a "tax cut for the rich."

* The Dem plan would leave intact all of the Trump tax cuts for personal income taxes, with the sole exception of the top marginal rate, which would go back to the previous rate of 39.6%, which would still be lower than it was for most of Reagan's presidency. Moreover, the Dem plan would maintain the Trump threshold of $600K for the top bracket.

* As mentioned, the Dem plan would keep *all* of the massive Trump tax cuts for the middle-income brackets. It would also maintain the Trump tax-cut provisions of capping SALT deductions at $10K and of capping mortgage-interest deductions.

* The Dem plan would return the death tax (the estate tax) to 2017 levels, which were an improvement over the rates for most of the previous four decades, and it would also return to the previous GOP-backed threshold of $5.49 million for exemption from the tax (vs. $11 million under the Trump tax cuts).

* The Dem plan would bring back the AMT, a very bad, baffling move. But, the AMT only affected people who made over 120K (single)/160K (married), and it did not really bite anyone until they started making over $300K, and even then the bite was not draconian.

* The Dem plan would leave intact Trump's special repatriation rate of 13.5% for American corporate money parked overseas that is brought back to the U.S.

* The Dem plan would close the carried-interest loophole, something that should have been done with the Trump tax cuts.

* The Dem plan would use the assumed savings vs. the Trump tax cuts to fund $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, and even most conservative think tanks agree that infrastructure spending usually largely pays for itself and sometimes gives us a large net gain. Trump has called for at least $1.6 trillion in infrastructure spending.

The Dem plan is not bad at all, but it is not as good as the Trump tax-cut bill and the Trump infrastructure-spending proposal. The Dem plan is a non-starter as long as the GOP controls the Senate, but it is really a pretty good plan.

Full text of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan.pdf

Executive summary of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan One Pager.pdf

you don't get anything from the tax cut. and we probably can't afford the infrastructure bill as long as its in effect cause you have to pay for this stuff

what's your problem with the plan though? maybe if repubs supported things that do good for people, your representatives would have to support them, too.

 

[jillian]

A few days ago, Senator Chuck Schumer and other leading Senate Democrats held a press conference to present their infrastructure and tax reform plan. The full title of the bill is SENATE DEMOCRATS' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS: RETURNING THE REPUBLICAN TAX GIVEAWAYS FOR THE WEALTHY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Dem plan is actually pretty good. It is only a tax-hike measure compared to the new tax rates under the Trump tax cuts. Compared to the tax rates that existed until last year, it calls for huge tax cuts, even for corporations, in spite of the bill's unfortunately partisan subtitle. If Hillary had proposed this plan during the election, Bernie supporters and other Dems would have skewered her for wanting to "give away hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich." Consider:

* The Dem plan would set the corporate income tax rate at 25%. This is 4 percentage points higher than the Trump rate of 21%, but it's 10 percentage points lower than what the rate was last year and for decades before that. When Mitt Romney proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% in 2012, Dems attacked the idea as a "tax cut for the rich."

* The Dem plan would leave intact all of the Trump tax cuts for personal income taxes, with the sole exception of the top marginal rate, which would go back to the previous rate of 39.6%, which would still be lower than it was for most of Reagan's presidency. Moreover, the Dem plan would maintain the Trump threshold of $600K for the top bracket.

* As mentioned, the Dem plan would keep *all* of the massive Trump tax cuts for the middle-income brackets. It would also maintain the Trump tax-cut provisions of capping SALT deductions at $10K and of capping mortgage-interest deductions.

* The Dem plan would return the death tax (the estate tax) to 2017 levels, which were an improvement over the rates for most of the previous four decades, and it would also return to the previous GOP-backed threshold of $5.49 million for exemption from the tax (vs. $11 million under the Trump tax cuts).

* The Dem plan would bring back the AMT, a very bad, baffling move. But, the AMT only affected people who made over 120K (single)/160K (married), and it did not really bite anyone until they started making over $300K, and even then the bite was not draconian.

* The Dem plan would close the carried-interest loophole, something that should have been done with the Trump tax cuts.

* The Dem plan would use the assumed savings vs. the Trump tax cuts to fund $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, and even most conservative think tanks agree that infrastructure spending usually largely pays for itself and sometimes gives us a large net gain. Trump has called for at least $1.6 trillion in infrastructure spending.

The Dem plan is not bad at all, but it is not as good as the Trump tax-cut bill and the Trump infrastructure-spending proposal. The Dem plan is a non-starter as long as the GOP controls the Senate, but it is really a pretty good plan.

Full text of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan.pdf

Executive summary of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan One Pager.pdf

The GOP will attack them mercilessly on this and position it as them piggybacking off of Trumps plan when they have never supported tax cuts. In fact, none of them even had the respect for the taxpayer to vote on the current cuts!

That's how I would go at them, on top of telling the public, "they now what some of YOUR money back to spend on their friends and pals on boondoggles. Not to mention increase the tax cuts to corporations who have given raises and bonues to their employees. All of that will be lost if you elect them"

Well, I don't know that it's fair to say that Dems have never supported tax cuts. Remember that in 2013, against the urging of the left wing of his party, Obama made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent. Furthermore, the bipartisan budget deal of 2016, which most Dems voted for, protected over $700 billion in tax breaks. Also remember that Bill Clinton signed a massive tax-cut bill in 1997.

republicans cut taxes and run deficits.

then yell when democrats expect the tax base to pay for what we need.

 

[danielpalos]

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

why not, if employers need labor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

why not, if employers need labor?

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

 

[danielpalos]

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

why not, if employers need labor?

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US. First worlds are expensive.

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

why not, if employers need labor?

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US. First worlds are expensive.

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US.

Exactly! Screw those low skilled losers, eh comrade?

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

Yup. Rich folks will do fine, even if idiot libs keep screwing over the poor.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why would you want to lose entry level jobs? Do you not grasp the importance of HAVING jobs where young people can learn about good work habits? Do you not understand that when you lose low wage jobs...you also lose any incentive for employers to hire those without job skills?

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

Minimum wage workers don't pay Federal taxes now. So your "solution" is to give them a big enough raise so that they have to pay taxes? So their buying power isn't going to increase at all...is it? Between inflation and the taxes you're going to hit them with their spendable income won't change a bit! So who really benefits from a higher minimum wage?

 

[Oldstyle]

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

The article you cite points out the glaring problem in your contention that we don't need minimum wage jobs, Daniel! Employers are saying that they can't find skilled workers to fill the positions. So where do skilled workers come from? Do they drop from the skies? No...they have to be trained to do jobs. Executive Chefs don't start out as Executive Chefs. Most of them started as dishwashers and prep cooks...then got promoted to line cook...then sous Chef...and only then did they become Execs. So how does that happen if you take away the entry level dishwasher prep cook jobs that you don't think we need anymore? The answer to that is quite simple...IT DOESN'T!

 

[Oldstyle]

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

And what will people with no job skills and young people starting out do since they'll be excluded from those jobs that "pay more"?

 

[danielpalos]

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

why not, if employers need labor?

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US. First worlds are expensive.

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US.

Exactly! Screw those low skilled losers, eh comrade?

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

Yup. Rich folks will do fine, even if idiot libs keep screwing over the poor.

Higher paid labor creates more demand and consumes more, and pays more in taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

You beg the question. The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour. We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs. It is a simple test. If capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost, why should Labor care if those capitalists, fail. It is an Individual Problem not an Institutional problem.

The new minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.

No it won't.

We don't care if we lose, low wage jobs.

Of course not. Dems don't care about low wage / low skill workers.

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

Minimum wage workers don't pay Federal taxes now. So your "solution" is to give them a big enough raise so that they have to pay taxes? So their buying power isn't going to increase at all...is it? Between inflation and the taxes you're going to hit them with their spendable income won't change a bit! So who really benefits from a higher minimum wage?

sure; they have to make enough to help pay for infrastructure, so we don't have to raise taxes on the already rich.