“Redistribute the wealth”

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

They don't give a damn how the government waste the money as long as they use the government as the robber to get even with the people who take risks and make money.

Exactly. It's all about wealth envy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Shouldnt wages increase with inflation and productivity though? They haven't been and that's what the problem is. That an adult may still be out there making only 7 or 8 an hour doing labor is fucked up. That's a failure in our system, probably multiple failures, and it's not just the individual's fault. Consumers need money in their pockets for this mary go round to keep spinning. If they are working full time then the majority of them should have money in their pocket to spend.

I'm starting to think that these jobs just flat shouldnt exist if they wont support a person because the business refuse to pay them. They arent good jobs. Automate them and let's ensure the opportunities for affordable skills development and job training are out there.

So how would taking more jobs away via automation ensure there would be better paying jobs........at least the ones left? If you want training for a better paying job, go for it. We are right behind you. Take out a loan and attend a trade school or college, but don't ask taxpayers to do that for you. We are 20 trillion in debt now.

There is no "system" that you speak of. People don't save money, open up companies, and take risks as a social obligation to create good paying jobs. Jobs are created because a business needs people to do certain kinds of work. They are paid fairly for their work because they accepted the pay when the job was offered to them. It doesn't get any fairer than that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

 

[danielpalos]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

even the dollar menu won't double. higher paid labor pays more in Tax and creates more in demand.

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

No, I think you are mistaken. The economy depends on people spending residual or disposal income.

So Democrats take over and institute a $15.00 minimum wage. That means you are now making $600.00 a week instead of $300.00 a week. But your rent increases $100.00 a month. Your groceries increase $100.00 a month. Your utilities increase $100.00 a month. You'd be in worse shape after the increase than before because now you entered a higher income tax bracket where a higher percentage of you paycheck goes to government.

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

No, I think you are mistaken. The economy depends on people spending residual or disposal income.

So Democrats take over and institute a $15.00 minimum wage. That means you are now making $600.00 a week instead of $300.00 a week. But your rent increases $100.00 a month. Your groceries increase $100.00 a month. Your utilities increase $100.00 a month. You'd be in worse shape after the increase than before because now you entered a higher income tax bracket where a higher percentage of you paycheck goes to government.

Lol you’re completely making up those figures. I really don’t think you understand the minimum wage debate. We aren’t proposing doubling it tomorrow. It’s gradually raising it over a few years. Again, the federal wage as you know, is only for 3% of the population so doubling it wouldn’t have some catastrophic effect. What’s reasonable is gradually raising it to $12 per hour. The effect on inflation in this case would be insignificant. Something at Burger King would go up by a few dimes and meanwhile a person has a few extra hundred bucks a month. We are talking about pennies on the dollar for any price hike.

Let me ask you this, if wages are already decades behind the rate of inflation, what is magically supposed to happen for corporations to drastically boost wages on their own accord? They maximize profit by spending as little as labor as they possibly can already. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. What exactly are you waiting for to happen? You’re deluding yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

No, I think you are mistaken. The economy depends on people spending residual or disposal income.

So Democrats take over and institute a $15.00 minimum wage. That means you are now making $600.00 a week instead of $300.00 a week. But your rent increases $100.00 a month. Your groceries increase $100.00 a month. Your utilities increase $100.00 a month. You'd be in worse shape after the increase than before because now you entered a higher income tax bracket where a higher percentage of you paycheck goes to government.

Lol you’re completely making up those figures. I really don’t think you understand the minimum wage debate. We aren’t proposing doubling it tomorrow. It’s gradually raising it over a few years. Again, the federal wage as you know, is only for 3% of the population so doubling it wouldn’t have some catastrophic effect. What’s reasonable is gradually raising it to $12 per hour. The effect on inflation in this case would be insignificant. Something at Burger King would go up by a few dimes and meanwhile a person has a few extra hundred bucks a month. We are talking about pennies on the dollar for any price hike.

Let me ask you this, if wages are already decades behind the rate of inflation, what is magically supposed to happen for corporations to drastically boost wages on their own accord? They maximize profit by spending as little as labor as they possibly can already. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. What exactly are you waiting for to happen? You’re deluding yourself.

Not every business is Burger King. Burger king sells 800 whoppers a day, the sell 400 cheeseburgers a day, they sell 1,200 beverages a day, they sell 700 french fries a day. Of course a minimum wage increase will only affect the prices minimally. However Joe's Hardware store does not sell 700 hammers a day. Bob's beverage store does not sell 500 12 packs a day.

Whether its graduate or immediate, what's the difference? Think people will notice less if it's gradual?

Yes, 3% of our workforce works for minimum wage, but increasing it creates a domino effect. I'm a landlord, and I have to pay the water and sewer bills here. If employees of the water and sewer departments make more money, then my water and sewer bills increase which I have to increase rents to recoup. Same goes if I have a lawn care service or a company to snowplow my parking lot and drive. Same goes if I need a plumber or remodeler. Everybody's wage increase because of the minimum wage increase, and we all pay those increases one way or another. We have to pass on those losses one way or another.

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

How about a tax credit for wage increases?

 

[KGB]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

But the bulk of the generated wealth eds up the the pockets of the wealthy. Dumbass

Because they took the risk dumbass...that’s why they get the reward.

If you invent something the world wants like the next Windows operating system, why the hell should anyone else who didn’t work on that invention get the reward?

The world or society doesn’t owe you shit. Quit trying to steal other people’s money...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The lower the minimum wage the higher the level of corporate welfare. The tax payer foots the bill in any scenario.

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

Tax breaks to billionaires sees the money go to Panama. Tax breaks for the poorest sees the money immediately recycled into the economy.
I struggle with the mindset of people who dont want poorly paid workers to get a bit more.

We do want them to get more, just not more of our money.

Question: how do we ever teach irresponsible people to be responsible if no matter what they do, we give them a way out?

Have kids you can't afford, we will feed them, give them medical care, and even baby sit for them if you have a job.

Dropped out of school or didn't pay attention; on dope? Have government subsidize your low pay.

Don't feel much like working. Go on our social programs.

Is it any wonder why there are poor people when we keep rewarding them to be poor?

Living on benefits is no life. Benefits/welfare is a corporate handout. But the majority of people having benefits are in work.. Here is the thing. If you cant feed yourself and put a roof over your head wen you are working full time then there is something wrong in society.
Its not the individual it is the job. Because even if the individual moves on the job remains.
Corporations can only pay shit wages because the tax payer is on hand to bail them out. That cant be right.

So it boils down to a very simple proposition.

We pay people a living wage as a minimum. Profits would have to come down a bit and we may have to pay a bit more for stuff.

Or we see people take starvation wages that are subsidised by the taxpayer at the request of the corporate donors.

At the moment its just a racket and our society is crumbling because of it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

Government has nothing to do with it. Raise minimum wage, and you create inflation. The $7.50 an hour worker who gets a raise from government to $15.00 an hour will find themselves right back in the exact same situation they started from because everything else will drastically increase in price. Then you will be demanding $20.00 an hour.

All you would really accomplish is more jobs leaving the state or country. Why do you think government promotes doubling the minimum wage? Because the higher wage you make, the more taxes you give to government. You're still dirt poor, but they really don't care about that.

Lol inflation depends on how high it is raised and how it is raised such as being indexed. Either way, if people make more money they SPEND more money. Consumer spending is 70% of our economy. This would obviously help the economy in the process.

No, I think you are mistaken. The economy depends on people spending residual or disposal income.

So Democrats take over and institute a $15.00 minimum wage. That means you are now making $600.00 a week instead of $300.00 a week. But your rent increases $100.00 a month. Your groceries increase $100.00 a month. Your utilities increase $100.00 a month. You'd be in worse shape after the increase than before because now you entered a higher income tax bracket where a higher percentage of you paycheck goes to government.

Lol you’re completely making up those figures. I really don’t think you understand the minimum wage debate. We aren’t proposing doubling it tomorrow. It’s gradually raising it over a few years. Again, the federal wage as you know, is only for 3% of the population so doubling it wouldn’t have some catastrophic effect. What’s reasonable is gradually raising it to $12 per hour. The effect on inflation in this case would be insignificant. Something at Burger King would go up by a few dimes and meanwhile a person has a few extra hundred bucks a month. We are talking about pennies on the dollar for any price hike.

Let me ask you this, if wages are already decades behind the rate of inflation, what is magically supposed to happen for corporations to drastically boost wages on their own accord? They maximize profit by spending as little as labor as they possibly can already. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. What exactly are you waiting for to happen? You’re deluding yourself.

Not every business is Burger King. Burger king sells 800 whoppers a day, the sell 400 cheeseburgers a day, they sell 1,200 beverages a day, they sell 700 french fries a day. Of course a minimum wage increase will only affect the prices minimally. However Joe's Hardware store does not sell 700 hammers a day. Bob's beverage store does not sell 500 12 packs a day.

Whether its graduate or immediate, what's the difference? Think people will notice less if it's gradual?

Yes, 3% of our workforce works for minimum wage, but increasing it creates a domino effect. I'm a landlord, and I have to pay the water and sewer bills here. If employees of the water and sewer departments make more money, then my water and sewer bills increase which I have to increase rents to recoup. Same goes if I have a lawn care service or a company to snowplow my parking lot and drive. Same goes if I need a plumber or remodeler. Everybody's wage increase because of the minimum wage increase, and we all pay those increases one way or another. We have to pass on those losses one way or another.

Or those companies could make a little less profit ?

 

[initforme]

The wealthy have never had it so good and easy to get wealthier than today. All this talk of wealth redistribution when there is so very little of it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The lower the minimum wage the higher the level of corporate welfare. The tax payer foots the bill in any scenario.

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

Tax breaks to billionaires sees the money go to Panama. Tax breaks for the poorest sees the money immediately recycled into the economy.
I struggle with the mindset of people who dont want poorly paid workers to get a bit more.

We do want them to get more, just not more of our money.

Question: how do we ever teach irresponsible people to be responsible if no matter what they do, we give them a way out?

Have kids you can't afford, we will feed them, give them medical care, and even baby sit for them if you have a job.

Dropped out of school or didn't pay attention; on dope? Have government subsidize your low pay.

Don't feel much like working. Go on our social programs.

Is it any wonder why there are poor people when we keep rewarding them to be poor?

Living on benefits is no life. Benefits/welfare is a corporate handout. But the majority of people having benefits are in work.. Here is the thing. If you cant feed yourself and put a roof over your head wen you are working full time then there is something wrong in society.

Au contraire, perhaps there is something wrong with you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

I'm a long way from being a dime a dozen employee. Try six figures.

No ownership does not create wealth in and of itself. An owner may do some productive work that creates wealth, but ownership alone does not.

Hording wealth is not the same thing as creating wealth.

/——-/ Hording wealth? You’re mad they don’t share with you. Ahhhh pooor baby. Don’t cry.

 

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

But the bulk of the generated wealth eds up the the pockets of the wealthy. Dumbass

Because they took the risk dumbass...that’s why they get the reward.

If you invent something the world wants like the next Windows operating system, why the hell should anyone else who didn’t work on that invention get the reward?

The world or society doesn’t owe you shit. Quit trying to steal other people’s money...

Who sai thinking society owes me anuything? No on but lying POIS you. Grow td anything about me

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

But the bulk of the generated wealth eds up the the pockets of the wealthy. Dumbass

Because they took the risk dumbass...that’s why they get the reward.

If you invent something the world wants like the next Windows operating system, why the hell should anyone else who didn’t work on that invention get the reward?

The world or society doesn’t owe you shit. Quit trying to steal other people’s money...

Yet another worthless anti-American asshole. Supporting your country is not the country stealing from you. If you don't want to support this country, leave it.

So, you think these CEOs making millions took a risk? Really? You are that fucking stupid.

Trump went bankrupt a few times. Who lost? Bankers , investors, contractors, working Americans.

You are an example of the stupid people who want to keep handing money to rich people & think they uill give you something. You are a typical Trumpet - dumber than shit.

I don't think society owes me anything. I have worked all my life & supported my family.

You, on the other hand, worship the wealthy. You don't want to support your own country - " whine whine whine the government is stealing my money"

The larger the divide between CEOs & workers grows, the worse it is for America.

 

[rightwinger]

We do not need to redistribute the wealth

Just why does public policy distribute money to the top instead of with working Americans

 

[RealDave]

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

Deficits are going up. Ask your buddy Trump, your economy hero. The wealthy are getting wealthier under Trump & the Middle Class is going backwards,. Typical Republicanism & typical stupidity from Republican voters like you.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that the wealthy were not getting wealthier under DumBama and the middle-class were not going backwards? You really live in your own little world, don't you?

And I see you once again deflected. So here's the question again: If we double the tax on the wealthy, how does that help you or me?

Obama worked on changing the tax code. Additional taxes were put into effect that targeted rich people.

You li ve in the world of ignorance. Put down then gun & try picking up a book

Maybe you should take your own advice about reading a book.

HTF do you think that taking more money from people helps them get richer? Explain those dynamics please. DumBama was the most anti-business President of our lives. What made the rich people richer was the feds dumping trillions of dollars in phoney money into the stock market called Quantitive Easing.........look it up sometime.

The more of the tax burden is paid by the wealthy, the less is paid by the working class. This means the working class has more money to buy shit & that stimulates the economy.

 

[rightwinger]

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

I'm a long way from being a dime a dozen employee. Try six figures.

No ownership does not create wealth in and of itself. An owner may do some productive work that creates wealth, but ownership alone does not.

Hording wealth is not the same thing as creating wealth.

/——-/ Hording wealth? You’re mad they don’t share with you. Ahhhh pooor baby. Don’t cry.

Why do we continue to cut their taxes when it doesn’t work it’s way down

 

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

They don't give a damn how the government waste the money as long as they use the government as the robber to get even with the people who take risks and make money.

More lies from a blithering fool.

When business people take risks, they loose other people's money. Ask your butt buddy Trump.

Most businesses in this country are small businesses where the owner uses his own money exclusively.

Most small business owners are not wealthy. Many borrow money from banks & have accounts with suppliers. All who lose when they go bankrupt. That is wht they organize as a Inc or LLC.