To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Humorme]

. Well to be fair in the observation, wasn't the discussion just a debate about where the minimum wage should be set in respect to the cost of living standard on a state by state basis ? Aren't we talking about just a minimum start up wage, and what that start up wage should be in 2017, and not what it should be based upon using 1960 standards ?? Is there a problem with the state minimum wage standard set in most states now, and why is there a problem ? Did corporate lobbyist get to government officials, and stop them from making the proper adjustments over time ? I mean Mc-d's was helping employees to understand how to apply for government assistance right ? This should have enraged the working class taxpayers that they were actually subsidizing multi-gazillion dollar companies.

Corporate welfare has created a poor working class environment. Not much difference in wages between the minimum wage worker and the guy that sits home and collects the check. What incentive does a worker have to work when at the end of the day he is getting nothing more than if he sat at home.

We need to increase wages but it is tough for me to argue the McD's idea of paying minimum wage when so many will work there for it. The healthcare mandate was another reason I could see not wanting to work. When you work, your health care costs would go up and then we would see the worker paying for healthcare that the guy sitting at home was getting for free.

We need to take care of those willing to work, not sure if only wages are the answer, however we need to change the way we think about low wages.

Did you have any objection to my idea of incentivizing employers to pay above the poverty level? They would not be required to meet any minimum wage, but if they did pay good wages, they would pay much lower taxes.

I think there may be tax advantages for corporations to encourage their employees to get additional education and training outside the workplace.

What I find with that slant is once the tax incentive goes away, so does the job. I am not in favor of corporate welfare, I am wanting government spending to really be cut back.

Those incentives would be permanent and included in the tax code.

Here is what is NOT going to happen in our lifetime:

* Dems and the courts are not going to abolish welfare
* The right will never get their heads out of their rectums in understanding taxes
* The American people will never admit that our ethics, as a people, are what is at the root of an entire generation trying to live off the public dole.

I've heard what the right has to say with respect to saving jobs and so forth. In the end it costs more than it purports to save - even by their own admission. The two party solutions that have been touted over my lifetime have not made much of a difference AND the average American is becoming poorer, the middle class shrinking and the wealth is being distributed to the wealthiest Americans.

The left thinks they can fix the problem with major doses of socialism and the right thinks they can fix it with the ultimate POLICE STATE.

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

 

[Papageorgio]

Most ceos have sore shoulders from golfing. They are unable to work hard.

Most losers in life are bitter over how others with more than themselves, live their lives.

You sound like a man with a lot of experience at losing. Of course, you can always judge a man by the company he keeps and that last guy patting you on the back said more than all the negative shit I can post here.

Sorry for upsetting you so much.

 

[Humorme]

Like I told the other guy, what you think is your business. You want ME to do the research to find out what YOU said that I determined was possibly a left wing talking point? You're mad because YOU can't figure out that I cannot clarify a point based upon what YOU (when I don't remember what YOU said) and YOU can't even locate your own post??? And now you claim you have me figured out? You are way out there in your own world.

It's all good, I don't really care, I realize you just make crap up and then get pissed when called on it. Thank you.

Sir, I didn't make anything up. I gave you my opinion based upon what YOU said. I own what I said and you can't deliver on what YOU said.

Expecting me to clarify a position without knowing what I was responding to is pure idiocy. How can you clarify your position with only half the relevant conversation?

I delivered it the first time, after that it is on you. That is the way it works in the real world. I'm done with your games, I have learned and I am good with what I learned about you.

It is not my responsibility to keep up with what you say.

You bragged about the number of posts you have on this discussion board. That only tells me you spend way too much time allowing this board to dictate the terms of your life and if you think you can judge people by a few words over the Internet, save the criticism. It's worthless.

Ultimately I will judged by what I've done and not what I've said. Furthermore, it will not be mortal men that have that luxury.

I didn't judge you, I said I have learned about you. You keep spinning what I say, I wonder why.

You're the one who wants to keep this pissing match alive. What the Hell are you? Fifteen at best? I'm not spinning a damn thing. NOBODY can clarify my position (not even me) unless they know what my response is in reference TO. That, kid, is YOUR responsibility! Now, I'll be moving forward while you pretend that you're smarter than those who have a life outside USM.

 

[Papageorgio]

Corporate welfare has created a poor working class environment. Not much difference in wages between the minimum wage worker and the guy that sits home and collects the check. What incentive does a worker have to work when at the end of the day he is getting nothing more than if he sat at home.

We need to increase wages but it is tough for me to argue the McD's idea of paying minimum wage when so many will work there for it. The healthcare mandate was another reason I could see not wanting to work. When you work, your health care costs would go up and then we would see the worker paying for healthcare that the guy sitting at home was getting for free.

We need to take care of those willing to work, not sure if only wages are the answer, however we need to change the way we think about low wages.

Did you have any objection to my idea of incentivizing employers to pay above the poverty level? They would not be required to meet any minimum wage, but if they did pay good wages, they would pay much lower taxes.

I think there may be tax advantages for corporations to encourage their employees to get additional education and training outside the workplace.

What I find with that slant is once the tax incentive goes away, so does the job. I am not in favor of corporate welfare, I am wanting government spending to really be cut back.

Those incentives would be permanent and included in the tax code.

Here is what is NOT going to happen in our lifetime:

* Dems and the courts are not going to abolish welfare
* The right will never get their heads out of their rectums in understanding taxes
* The American people will never admit that our ethics, as a people, are what is at the root of an entire generation trying to live off the public dole.

I've heard what the right has to say with respect to saving jobs and so forth. In the end it costs more than it purports to save - even by their own admission. The two party solutions that have been touted over my lifetime have not made much of a difference AND the average American is becoming poorer, the middle class shrinking and the wealth is being distributed to the wealthiest Americans.

The left thinks they can fix the problem with major doses of socialism and the right thinks they can fix it with the ultimate POLICE STATE.

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's all good, I don't really care, I realize you just make crap up and then get pissed when called on it. Thank you.

Sir, I didn't make anything up. I gave you my opinion based upon what YOU said. I own what I said and you can't deliver on what YOU said.

Expecting me to clarify a position without knowing what I was responding to is pure idiocy. How can you clarify your position with only half the relevant conversation?

I delivered it the first time, after that it is on you. That is the way it works in the real world. I'm done with your games, I have learned and I am good with what I learned about you.

It is not my responsibility to keep up with what you say.

You bragged about the number of posts you have on this discussion board. That only tells me you spend way too much time allowing this board to dictate the terms of your life and if you think you can judge people by a few words over the Internet, save the criticism. It's worthless.

Ultimately I will judged by what I've done and not what I've said. Furthermore, it will not be mortal men that have that luxury.

I didn't judge you, I said I have learned about you. You keep spinning what I say, I wonder why.

You're the one who wants to keep this pissing match alive. What the Hell are you? Fifteen at best? I'm not spinning a damn thing. NOBODY can clarify my position (not even me) unless they know what my response is in reference TO. That, kid, is YOUR responsibility! Now, I'll be moving forward while you pretend that you're smarter than those who have a life outside USM.

Okay, whatever you want it to be.I have been over it several posts ago.

 

[beagle9]

Most ceos have sore shoulders from golfing. They are unable to work hard.

Most losers in life are bitter over how others with more than themselves, live their lives.

. It's not that cut and dry really.. Sometimes a person gets the break when another one is left behind (doesn't make the person left behind nessesarily a loser). The bitterness doesn't come because his or her co-worker made it out or finally does better in life, but rather it's that the bitterness may come if the door of opportunity closed just as fast as it had opened up for another who just so happened to be picked out of the litter, and worse it then closes for unethical and immoral reasoning to boot.

Not everyone that doesn't make it should be considered as losers, but rather they are just in a long line waiting for their break to hopefully one day come as well, and yet they expect not to be mistreated or abused during their wait time.

The road to prosperity isn't always fair, and it only has room for a few at a time to enter in or through at the gates. So the main thing is that for those who do make it, then are they going to be humble in their success or use their success to do evil against the lower rungs on the ladder with that success ??? Seems there is alot of evil going on these days, and alot of evil opinions of one's fellow man going on these days as well.

 

[Humorme]

Sir, I didn't make anything up. I gave you my opinion based upon what YOU said. I own what I said and you can't deliver on what YOU said.

Expecting me to clarify a position without knowing what I was responding to is pure idiocy. How can you clarify your position with only half the relevant conversation?

I delivered it the first time, after that it is on you. That is the way it works in the real world. I'm done with your games, I have learned and I am good with what I learned about you.

It is not my responsibility to keep up with what you say.

You bragged about the number of posts you have on this discussion board. That only tells me you spend way too much time allowing this board to dictate the terms of your life and if you think you can judge people by a few words over the Internet, save the criticism. It's worthless.

Ultimately I will judged by what I've done and not what I've said. Furthermore, it will not be mortal men that have that luxury.

I didn't judge you, I said I have learned about you. You keep spinning what I say, I wonder why.

You're the one who wants to keep this pissing match alive. What the Hell are you? Fifteen at best? I'm not spinning a damn thing. NOBODY can clarify my position (not even me) unless they know what my response is in reference TO. That, kid, is YOUR responsibility! Now, I'll be moving forward while you pretend that you're smarter than those who have a life outside USM.

Okay, whatever you want it to be.I have been over it several posts ago.

Good. Thanks.

 

[Humorme]

Did you have any objection to my idea of incentivizing employers to pay above the poverty level? They would not be required to meet any minimum wage, but if they did pay good wages, they would pay much lower taxes.

I think there may be tax advantages for corporations to encourage their employees to get additional education and training outside the workplace.

What I find with that slant is once the tax incentive goes away, so does the job. I am not in favor of corporate welfare, I am wanting government spending to really be cut back.

Those incentives would be permanent and included in the tax code.

Here is what is NOT going to happen in our lifetime:

* Dems and the courts are not going to abolish welfare
* The right will never get their heads out of their rectums in understanding taxes
* The American people will never admit that our ethics, as a people, are what is at the root of an entire generation trying to live off the public dole.

I've heard what the right has to say with respect to saving jobs and so forth. In the end it costs more than it purports to save - even by their own admission. The two party solutions that have been touted over my lifetime have not made much of a difference AND the average American is becoming poorer, the middle class shrinking and the wealth is being distributed to the wealthiest Americans.

The left thinks they can fix the problem with major doses of socialism and the right thinks they can fix it with the ultimate POLICE STATE.

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

 

[Papageorgio]

What I find with that slant is once the tax incentive goes away, so does the job. I am not in favor of corporate welfare, I am wanting government spending to really be cut back.

Those incentives would be permanent and included in the tax code.

Here is what is NOT going to happen in our lifetime:

* Dems and the courts are not going to abolish welfare
* The right will never get their heads out of their rectums in understanding taxes
* The American people will never admit that our ethics, as a people, are what is at the root of an entire generation trying to live off the public dole.

I've heard what the right has to say with respect to saving jobs and so forth. In the end it costs more than it purports to save - even by their own admission. The two party solutions that have been touted over my lifetime have not made much of a difference AND the average American is becoming poorer, the middle class shrinking and the wealth is being distributed to the wealthiest Americans.

The left thinks they can fix the problem with major doses of socialism and the right thinks they can fix it with the ultimate POLICE STATE.

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

Have you actually read the tax bills yourself?

Nope, I have a full-time job. So I depend on sources I trust like FactCheck to summarize what it says.

I don't take other people's word for anything. That is what your congresscritters are doing. That is how we get bad laws. I'm like Ron Paul was. If it takes more than five minutes to read the bill, I'm against it.

So in other words you didn’t read it either since it’s over 200 pages long. If that’s the case, why are you commenting on what I said?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I comment on what is posted when it's posted. A day later I'm not likely to be posting about that part of the discussion that is fifty posts back.

You see, you have to click on the words "Click to expand" and you'd see it was only a few posts back. If you do that, it brings the entire conversation so you don't have to go flipping back through the pages.

 

[Papageorgio]

Have you actually read the tax bills yourself?

Nope, I have a full-time job. So I depend on sources I trust like FactCheck to summarize what it says.

I don't take other people's word for anything. That is what your congresscritters are doing. That is how we get bad laws. I'm like Ron Paul was. If it takes more than five minutes to read the bill, I'm against it.

So in other words you didn’t read it either since it’s over 200 pages long. If that’s the case, why are you commenting on what I said?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I comment on what is posted when it's posted. A day later I'm not likely to be posting about that part of the discussion that is fifty posts back.

You see, you have to click on the words "Click to expand" and you'd see it was only a few posts back. If you do that, it brings the entire conversation so you don't have to go flipping back through the pages.

Give it up, I just went through with him and he really has no clue or he is dishonest, either way he isn't worth the time or the bother.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

Go fuck yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

Are you even semi-literate?

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

 

[beagle9]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

. You want socialism to exist at or near the bottom in order to supply workers like mindless zombies to the upper levels, but meanwhile the upper levels respect a capitalist system only at or near the levels in which exist up above. Its classic Class Warfare is what it all amounts too.

 

[beagle9]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

. Why do you think government exist, and why we have laws and protections in this country ? If people wouldn't have done the idiotic things in which they have done over the years, then government would have never got involved in the way that it has over the years. Do you think that Trump isn't going to use government power to make change in the country, and to enforce laws in this country ? All that government is ok though right ?? Look, all people want is respect that's all, but for some reason if that respect cost a few dollars to help people keep in tune with the cost of living in a state, then HELL NO huh ???

 

[Humorme]

Those incentives would be permanent and included in the tax code.

Here is what is NOT going to happen in our lifetime:

* Dems and the courts are not going to abolish welfare
* The right will never get their heads out of their rectums in understanding taxes
* The American people will never admit that our ethics, as a people, are what is at the root of an entire generation trying to live off the public dole.

I've heard what the right has to say with respect to saving jobs and so forth. In the end it costs more than it purports to save - even by their own admission. The two party solutions that have been touted over my lifetime have not made much of a difference AND the average American is becoming poorer, the middle class shrinking and the wealth is being distributed to the wealthiest Americans.

The left thinks they can fix the problem with major doses of socialism and the right thinks they can fix it with the ultimate POLICE STATE.

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

 

[Humorme]

Nope, I have a full-time job. So I depend on sources I trust like FactCheck to summarize what it says.

I don't take other people's word for anything. That is what your congresscritters are doing. That is how we get bad laws. I'm like Ron Paul was. If it takes more than five minutes to read the bill, I'm against it.

So in other words you didn’t read it either since it’s over 200 pages long. If that’s the case, why are you commenting on what I said?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I comment on what is posted when it's posted. A day later I'm not likely to be posting about that part of the discussion that is fifty posts back.

You see, you have to click on the words "Click to expand" and you'd see it was only a few posts back. If you do that, it brings the entire conversation so you don't have to go flipping back through the pages.

Give it up, I just went through with him and he really has no clue or he is dishonest, either way he isn't worth the time or the bother.

I'm not dishonest. YOU ARE. You want me to be a fucking mind reader and I'm not. It's not my responsibility to try and figure out what offended you. You want to get nasty? Let's do it.

 

[Humorme]

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

Go fuck yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

Are you even semi-literate?

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

When you have to ask other people about their level of literacy, you are probably lacking in your own.

 

[Humorme]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

OMG, and you're so smart you couldn't figure that one out on your own, could you?

 

[Humorme]

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

. Why do you think government exist, and why we have laws and protections in this country ? If people wouldn't have done the idiotic things in which they have done over the years, then government would have never got involved in the way that it has over the years. Do you think that Trump isn't going to use government power to make change in the country, and to enforce laws in this country ? All that government is ok though right ?? Look, all people want is respect that's all, but for some reason if that respect cost a few dollars to help people keep in tune with the cost of living in a state, then HELL NO huh ???

I think you're wasting bandwidth trying to appeal to this guy's sense of reason. The only thing he and his buddies are doing is to create a hostile environment and discourage civil discourse.

Bear in mind we have three realities:

The legality of our situation
The morality of our situation
The reality of our situation

Our economic problems do not rest on jobs alone. Many people do not have jobs because they are not qualified to do the jobs nor would they ever be able to.

The way we used to handle it in early America is that charity started at home. But, wait, today if a preacher tries to help the people, he / she comes into conflict with a myriad of idiotic laws that prevent us from helping people.

You can't use the church for a place to let the homeless stay. You have to have separate quarters for that - along with a special license. So, while there are people out there shivering their asses off and stinking like a sewer, there are thousands of empty churches that could house them. You can't feed those people; you need a food license. A church needs permission from the state in order to raise money for the poor and if the almighty state doesn't like your tenets of faith, they will revoke your non-profit status.

The Republicans want the ultimate POLICE STATE and the Democrats are in favor of the Nanny State. Economic theory is only theory and until you weigh in the social, political, religious and other non - economic legal issues into the mix, you can't understand the bottom line.