Poll: Solid majority (71%) of Americans support Obama’s increase of the minimum wage

[The Rabbi]

your old saw "sold out to the rich" is just as stupid every time you say it. Sold out to liberalism would be a more accurate statement. It started with FDR and got worse with every president since.

No, sold out to the rich is correct. In those days, the rich paid 90% taxes. Women were discouraged from working in order to ensure full employment for their husbands, and the post-war baby boom fuelled the economy as families bought homes and cars and moved to the suburbs.

But since Reagan took office, a transfer of the wealth of the nation to it's richest corporations was undertaken through tax cuts, loopholes and breaks for the wealthy. The economic ideals of profit before all else took root and greed became good. Last but not least, the poor were blamed for ballooning deficits, but the ballooning deficits were brought about by the poverty inflicted on the poor by the conservative economic policies. This infuriated the conservatives. Money was being wasted on these n'eer do wells that should be flowing into corporate coffers.

We need to go back to a less stratified society, and one where wages are not supressed by means of government welfare programs. Corporations need to pay their workers a living wage.

You really are challenged, aren't you?
Women stayed at home to raise kids because they could. They started working during WW2 because there was a manpower shortage. They went back to not working after the war. The big inflation of the 1970s, long before Reagan, made it impossible to live on one salary. The rich never paid 90% of taxes. That is simply made up.
The other trend is more generous welfare payments and programs that created disincentives to work. Someone on welfare today takes a 60% hit on his income if he decides to work. That is the problem right there. Liberal policies are gross failures and have been since FDR.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can always tell when the stupid become desperate: They begin to cite agreewithliberal.org internet links for "facts."

Insipid responses are not a substitute for refuting facts that overide your position.

You really want me to respond to your dumbass post?

The one where I point out Wal-mart pays out over 5 $Billion in Taxes, and you're still bitching?

The purpose of a debate is to either concede or refute the points made by the other party. No one is contesting what Walmart pays in taxes. The current point is that Walmart is a healthcare parasite. Deflection does not qualify as a valid refutation of that point. Try again.

 

[Samson]

Insipid responses are not a substitute for refuting facts that overide your position.

You really want me to respond to your dumbass post?

The one where I point out Wal-mart pays out over 5 $Billion in Taxes, and you're still bitching?

The purpose of a debate is to either concede or refute the points made by the other party. No one is contesting what Walmart pays in taxes. The current point is that Walmart is a healthcare parasite. Deflection does not qualify as a valid refutation of that point. Try again.

Usually I assume a certain low level of intelligence among posters like yourself, however you've proven that I've undersetimated your particular stupidity;

You post that:
$1 billion= Cost to nation if public safety net use by Walmart associates in Massachusetts is adjusted nationwide

I post that
$5.3 billion = Taxes paid to nation

$5.3 B- 1 B =

$4.3 Billion, the amount Walmart pays in excess of what your blog cites "cost to nation."

Now I suppose I'll continue to spoon feed you:

The nation could easily pay for the "safety net" USING the TAX DOLLARS IT RECEIVES FROM WALMART.

or

Given a $1 Billion TAX CREDIT for the safety net WALMART COULD PAY FOR THE SAFETY NET ITSELF

To expect Wal-Mart to pay the TAX, and to pay for the safety net makes YOU the paracite.

 

[Samson]

Conservatives are really big on retraining people but the working poor don't have the money to retrain, nor do they have the option to stop working and go to school because they have families to support and bills to pay.

Hey, you go to school in the USA for FREE. An entire Department of Education is devoted to your success from age 5-18. Afterward, you can join the military, or not. Instead you can fuck around, have kids, and make minimum wage.

Lotta BAD choices have lead to some idiot with a family living on minimum wage. Adults live with those choices. Children get on a message board and whine about them, then follow some politician around gathering government cheese in his wake.

The "blame the victim" mentality seems to be the a core value of those who claim that this is a Christian nation.

Yeah, that personal responsibility thing sucks if you're a whiny child.

 

[The Rabbi]

You really want me to respond to your dumbass post?

The one where I point out Wal-mart pays out over 5 $Billion in Taxes, and you're still bitching?

The purpose of a debate is to either concede or refute the points made by the other party. No one is contesting what Walmart pays in taxes. The current point is that Walmart is a healthcare parasite. Deflection does not qualify as a valid refutation of that point. Try again.

Usually I assume a certain low level of intelligence among posters like yourself, however you've proven that I've undersetimated your particular stupidity;

You post that:
$1 billion= Cost to nation if public safety net use by Walmart associates in Massachusetts is adjusted nationwide

I post that
$5.3 billion = Taxes paid to nation

$5.3 B- 1 B =

$4.3 Billion, the amount Walmart pays in excess of what your blog cites "cost to nation."

Now I suppose I'll continue to spoon feed you:

The nation could easily pay for the "safety net" USING the TAX DOLLARS IT RECEIVES FROM WALMART.

or

Given a $1 Billion TAX CREDIT for the safety net WALMART COULD PAY FOR THE SAFETY NET ITSELF

To expect Wal-Mart to pay the TAX, and to pay for the safety net makes YOU the paracite.

QED.
Close the thread, stick a form in Mr Derisive, he's done.

 

[Dubya]

your old saw "sold out to the rich" is just as stupid every time you say it. Sold out to liberalism would be a more accurate statement. It started with FDR and got worse with every president since.

No, sold out to the rich is correct. In those days, the rich paid 90% taxes. Women were discouraged from working in order to ensure full employment for their husbands, and the post-war baby boom fuelled the economy as families bought homes and cars and moved to the suburbs.

But since Reagan took office, a transfer of the wealth of the nation to it's richest corporations was undertaken through tax cuts, loopholes and breaks for the wealthy. The economic ideals of profit before all else took root and greed became good. Last but not least, the poor were blamed for ballooning deficits, but the ballooning deficits were brought about by the poverty inflicted on the poor by the conservative economic policies. This infuriated the conservatives. Money was being wasted on these n'eer do wells that should be flowing into corporate coffers.

We need to go back to a less stratified society, and one where wages are not supressed by means of government welfare programs. Corporations need to pay their workers a living wage.

You really are challenged, aren't you?
Women stayed at home to raise kids because they could. They started working during WW2 because there was a manpower shortage. They went back to not working after the war. The big inflation of the 1970s, long before Reagan, made it impossible to live on one salary. The rich never paid 90% of taxes. That is simply made up.
The other trend is more generous welfare payments and programs that created disincentives to work. Someone on welfare today takes a 60% hit on his income if he decides to work. That is the problem right there. Liberal policies are gross failures and have been since FDR.

I've given you the figures on welfare costs and $21.9 billion at the end of the Great Recession doesn't show the masses of people on welfare that you liars keep claiming. I've posted the links for around 300 of you lying right-wing bastards and asked them to use the data to make a case against welfare. Not one of you right-wing scum ever took that challenge. Your welfare state for the people is a myth and the real welfare state is for corporations.

 

[Redfish]

No, sold out to the rich is correct. In those days, the rich paid 90% taxes. Women were discouraged from working in order to ensure full employment for their husbands, and the post-war baby boom fuelled the economy as families bought homes and cars and moved to the suburbs.

But since Reagan took office, a transfer of the wealth of the nation to it's richest corporations was undertaken through tax cuts, loopholes and breaks for the wealthy. The economic ideals of profit before all else took root and greed became good. Last but not least, the poor were blamed for ballooning deficits, but the ballooning deficits were brought about by the poverty inflicted on the poor by the conservative economic policies. This infuriated the conservatives. Money was being wasted on these n'eer do wells that should be flowing into corporate coffers.

We need to go back to a less stratified society, and one where wages are not supressed by means of government welfare programs. Corporations need to pay their workers a living wage.

You really are challenged, aren't you?
Women stayed at home to raise kids because they could. They started working during WW2 because there was a manpower shortage. They went back to not working after the war. The big inflation of the 1970s, long before Reagan, made it impossible to live on one salary. The rich never paid 90% of taxes. That is simply made up.
The other trend is more generous welfare payments and programs that created disincentives to work. Someone on welfare today takes a 60% hit on his income if he decides to work. That is the problem right there. Liberal policies are gross failures and have been since FDR.

I've given you the figures on welfare costs and $21.9 billion at the end of the Great Recession doesn't show the masses of people on welfare that you liars keep claiming. I've posted the links for around 300 of you lying right-wing bastards and asked them to use the data to make a case against welfare. Not one of you right-wing scum ever took that challenge. Your welfare state for the people is a myth and the real welfare state is for corporations.

you are a sad combination of bitterness and ignorance. in the days when the top tax rate was 90% no one paid that. There were hundreds of deductions and exemptions that are not available today. You are spouting lies as usual.

 

[Dragonlady]

Given a $1 Billion TAX CREDIT for the safety net WALMART COULD PAY FOR THE SAFETY NET ITSELF

That's what we're asking for - for Walmart to pay for it's own food stamps and Medicaid out of it's own pocket - as wages. They will be able to deduct the increased costs for their employees from the business expenses which will reduce the amount of tax Walmart pays, but then the government won't have the expense of collecting that money as taxes, sending it on to the states for Food Stamps, and then redistributing it to Walmart employees, which will be a whole lot cheaper for the government.

Thank you for agreeing with us.

 

[Dubya]

You really are challenged, aren't you?
Women stayed at home to raise kids because they could. They started working during WW2 because there was a manpower shortage. They went back to not working after the war. The big inflation of the 1970s, long before Reagan, made it impossible to live on one salary. The rich never paid 90% of taxes. That is simply made up.
The other trend is more generous welfare payments and programs that created disincentives to work. Someone on welfare today takes a 60% hit on his income if he decides to work. That is the problem right there. Liberal policies are gross failures and have been since FDR.

I've given you the figures on welfare costs and $21.9 billion at the end of the Great Recession doesn't show the masses of people on welfare that you liars keep claiming. I've posted the links for around 300 of you lying right-wing bastards and asked them to use the data to make a case against welfare. Not one of you right-wing scum ever took that challenge. Your welfare state for the people is a myth and the real welfare state is for corporations.

you are a sad combination of bitterness and ignorance. in the days when the top tax rate was 90% no one paid that. There were hundreds of deductions and exemptions that are not available today. You are spouting lies as usual.

Why do you quote what I said about welfare and change the subject? Are you drunk already?

 

[Dragonlady]

Women stayed at home to raise kids because they could. They started working during WW2 because there was a manpower shortage. They went back to not working after the war. The big inflation of the 1970s, long before Reagan, made it impossible to live on one salary. The rich never paid 90% of taxes. That is simply made up.
The other trend is more generous welfare payments and programs that created disincentives to work. Someone on welfare today takes a 60% hit on his income if he decides to work. That is the problem right there. Liberal policies are gross failures and have been since FDR.

Women were told it was their patriotic duty to give up working and return to being homemakers because their MEN needed the jobs. America appreciated their contribution during the war, and now needed them to return to their homes.

The big inflation of the 1970's - right after the Republicans were in office for 8 years, escalating the Viet Nam war, and the increased spending that went with it. I notice how Republicans always gloss over the recessions and economic problems caused but their running of the economy, or better, blame it on the Democrats.

 

[Dubya]

I've shown these idiots that the FED has a mandate to prevent a wage/price spiral.

Boy do you not understand what it is the Fed does. They don't prevent inflation, they ensure it, evidenced by the fact that a widget that cost $100 in 1780 cost the same $100 just before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Meaning, prices on some items increased, others decreased, just as we would expect in free markets.

However, an item that cost $100 in 1913 costs over $2,300 in 2013. That's not a "mandate to prevent" inflation, that's CAUSING inflation.

Returning to the MW, you still haven't addressed immorality of preventing citizens from working at all in exchange for a small pay raise for about 4% of existing workers. Good for the current job holders, really bad for the young, the elderly and those who do not possess the qualifications to justify a minimum wage. Again, if you care to respond with specificity, how is preventing people from obtaining work moral? How do you justify it?

Not expecting a rational response, but I thought I'd give it one more go.

I have addressed the red herring issue of the immorality of minimum wage. I pointed out how many countries have MW, so move to Somalia and enjoy a life without it!

I know what the Fed does and we will always have 1 in 25 people unemployed and will always need people to do the job of minimum wage workers. When I was a kid you weren't allowed to work until you were 16 and you had to get working papers. They didn't allow kids to work when they were going to school, but you could work during the summer, if you were 16 years old. Kids shouldn't have to work and should have parents who take care of them, so they can spend their time in school to better themselves. I was fortunate as a child to be able to earn money, because I had family in businesses that I could assist, but they didn't interfer with my time in school.

The next time your cheap ass is out there going to a store or some place that hires minimum wage or below minimum wage people, try to think about someone else for a change. What is wrong with you paying a little more so someone can live a decent life? When you are there, you are the one who needs that person to do that job, so pay for it and stop only thinking about yourself!

 

[Katzndogz]

Other countries, in Europe and in Australia have minimum wage structures, not across the board increases. These laws provide a minimum wage by category which makes far more sense than an across the board increase. If you don't want a Category 5 janitor, hire a category three janitor and pay less.

Santa Monica is the next little city down the street. They have a city wage law providing for a minimum wage of $10.00 an hour. I wouldn't buy a thimble in Santa Monica. I'll go to some other little city that doesn't have a surcharge. People may want to get a higher minimum wage, they just don't want to pay for it.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Given a $1 Billion TAX CREDIT for the safety net WALMART COULD PAY FOR THE SAFETY NET ITSELF

That's what we're asking for - for Walmart to pay for it's own food stamps and Medicaid out of it's own pocket - as wages. They will be able to deduct the increased costs for their employees from the business expenses which will reduce the amount of tax Walmart pays, but then the government won't have the expense of collecting that money as taxes, sending it on to the states for Food Stamps, and then redistributing it to Walmart employees, which will be a whole lot cheaper for the government.

Thank you for agreeing with us.

Ahahahaha... No.

How would increasing business expenses reduce the amount of taxes Wal-Mart pays?

 

[Dubya]

Other countries, in Europe and in Australia have minimum wage structures, not across the board increases. These laws provide a minimum wage by category which makes far more sense than an across the board increase. If you don't want a Category 5 janitor, hire a category three janitor and pay less.

Santa Monica is the next little city down the street. They have a city wage law providing for a minimum wage of $10.00 an hour. I wouldn't buy a thimble in Santa Monica. I'll go to some other little city that doesn't have a surcharge. People may want to get a higher minimum wage, they just don't want to pay for it.

You can find a list of countries that use collective bargaining, but that means they have unions to represent the workers and negotiate a minimum wage for a specific job category. The mimumum wages in countries like Germany who negotiate are even higher than countries like the UK that has a minimum wage, like the US.

You would be first in line to oppose a union.

 

[Katzndogz]

Other countries, in Europe and in Australia have minimum wage structures, not across the board increases. These laws provide a minimum wage by category which makes far more sense than an across the board increase. If you don't want a Category 5 janitor, hire a category three janitor and pay less.

Santa Monica is the next little city down the street. They have a city wage law providing for a minimum wage of $10.00 an hour. I wouldn't buy a thimble in Santa Monica. I'll go to some other little city that doesn't have a surcharge. People may want to get a higher minimum wage, they just don't want to pay for it.

You can find a list of countries that use collective bargaining, but that means they have unions to represent the workers and negotiate a minimum wage for a specific job category. The mimumum wages in countries like Germany who negotiate are even higher than countries like the UK that has a minimum wage, like the US.

You would be first in line to oppose a union.

I would oppose a union because unions are evil unto themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

How would increasing business expenses reduce the amount of taxes Wal-Mart pays?

Increasing the amount Walmart pays to it's employees, increases their business costs, thus reducing net income. Businesses pay tax on their net income, not their gross income, so the amount of taxable income would be reduced. By letting the government look after it's workers, Walmart gets to claim a much bigger profits which makes it look financially healthier on paper, but American taxpayers are subsidizing those profits with food stamps and Medicaid.

The worst of it is, that Walmart pays to poorly that it's employees don't pay income tax and are 47%. By paying $100 a week to all of it's employees, Walmart could still book large profits, their employees would pay income tax, and they would no longer be eligible for food stamps. Everybody wins. This way, the Walton Famiily wins, and the American taxpayers are screwed.

 

[Oldstyle]

How would increasing business expenses reduce the amount of taxes Wal-Mart pays?

Increasing the amount Walmart pays to it's employees, increases their business costs, thus reducing net income. Businesses pay tax on their net income, not their gross income, so the amount of taxable income would be reduced. By letting the government look after it's workers, Walmart gets to claim a much bigger profits which makes it look financially healthier on paper, but American taxpayers are subsidizing those profits with food stamps and Medicaid.

The worst of it is, that Walmart pays to poorly that it's employees don't pay income tax and are 47%. By paying $100 a week to all of it's employees, Walmart could still book large profits, their employees would pay income tax, and they would no longer be eligible for food stamps. Everybody wins. This way, the Walton Famiily wins, and the American taxpayers are screwed.

You've obviously never paid employees, Dragonlady. Businesses pay taxes not only on their profit but also on the wages that they pay to each and every employee. The more they pay in wages...the more they will have to dish out in taxes.

 

[Dubya]

Given a $1 Billion TAX CREDIT for the safety net WALMART COULD PAY FOR THE SAFETY NET ITSELF

That's what we're asking for - for Walmart to pay for it's own food stamps and Medicaid out of it's own pocket - as wages. They will be able to deduct the increased costs for their employees from the business expenses which will reduce the amount of tax Walmart pays, but then the government won't have the expense of collecting that money as taxes, sending it on to the states for Food Stamps, and then redistributing it to Walmart employees, which will be a whole lot cheaper for the government.

Thank you for agreeing with us.

Ahahahaha... No.

How would increasing business expenses reduce the amount of taxes Wal-Mart pays?

How would knowing a little about tax accounting improve your knowledge of this subject?

 

[Katzndogz]

How would increasing business expenses reduce the amount of taxes Wal-Mart pays?

Increasing the amount Walmart pays to it's employees, increases their business costs, thus reducing net income. Businesses pay tax on their net income, not their gross income, so the amount of taxable income would be reduced. By letting the government look after it's workers, Walmart gets to claim a much bigger profits which makes it look financially healthier on paper, but American taxpayers are subsidizing those profits with food stamps and Medicaid.

The worst of it is, that Walmart pays to poorly that it's employees don't pay income tax and are 47%. By paying $100 a week to all of it's employees, Walmart could still book large profits, their employees would pay income tax, and they would no longer be eligible for food stamps. Everybody wins. This way, the Walton Famiily wins, and the American taxpayers are screwed.

You've obviously never paid employees, Dragonlady. Businesses pay taxes not only on their profit but also on the wages that they pay to each and every employee. The more they pay in wages...the more they will have to dish out in taxes.

Dragonlady might be under the erroneous impression that the withholding on earnings is all the taxes collected.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

How would increasing business expenses reduce the amount of taxes Wal-Mart pays?

Increasing the amount Walmart pays to it's employees, increases their business costs, thus reducing net income. Businesses pay tax on their net income, not their gross income, so the amount of taxable income would be reduced. By letting the government look after it's workers, Walmart gets to claim a much bigger profits which makes it look financially healthier on paper, but American taxpayers are subsidizing those profits with food stamps and Medicaid.

You're living in a fantasy world. Unless Wal-Mart falls into a lower tax bracket (highly unlikely), their income tax rate will stay the same. So all that happens is that Wal-Mart's pre-tax income would be lower. Why would Wal-Mart do that?