Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.
it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.
I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.
What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.
. Ok, now go back in history for a second, and then name off the thousands of small businesses that were in play before the several you listed above took over in each town or city that you can name today in America. They don't call it consolidated corporate row for nothing anymore right? Corporations by there very nature are socialist/communist style operations anymore, and the government is falling lock step in with them.Walmart has tons of competition, so your example falls flat on its face. It is not a monopoly. Within a half mile of each other, my town has a Kmart, Target, and Walmart. You need to educate yourself in reality and get your head out of the Communist Manifesto.It is very much how things are done in the US. Have you never heard of Anti-Trust Laws? Reagan gutted anti-trust legislation and merger mania began. And while merger mania has been very good for those at the top, the rest of the economy has suffered. Wages have stagnated. New companies can't compete.Back at the turn of the last century, when the monopolies were broken up, MORE jobs were created. Better paying jobs.This is a very American thing to do. Read your own history.Once again you fall back on your Communist principles. That is not how we do things in this country. Why don't you seek out a country where they do these sort of things? I here Venezuela is nice this time of year if you don't mind starving to death.
. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.You seem to be the stupid one. While making billions of dollars the Walton's are paying so little that employees are on welfare. Welfare increases government dependence. As long as the rich continue to pay so little the government grows. To make it worse all this inequality slows the economy.
They will always be on welfare no matter what the National minimum wage is.
If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?
Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.
Or
Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor
I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.
Wal Mart is around $10-11 an hour to start right now, that is PLENTY as a beginning wage. Figure that out. $10 an hour times 2080 hours a year is obviously $20,080. That is low enough that there will be no income tax withholding and if you have kids and such, that's your fault, don't have kids you can't afford.
In real dollars the minimum wage has always been historically around $10 an hour. Need more money? Get a better job.
What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.
If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.
. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.
A person is paid minimum wage as long as they are willing to work there.
A lot of people don't see cost of living raises or any other kind of raise. it's not exclusive to anybody really. It's just part of working for somebody else.
it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.
I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.
What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.
Your one link you posted claimed we were just waiting for trickle down.
See you don't even understand simple examples.
I've used very simple examples, posted several studies supporting what I am saying, posted economists explaining why... You choose to ignore the facts.
The the government needs to periodically raise the minimum wage so these people don't fall further behind. But earned income credits need to be scrapped. Increasing the minimum wage is a far more cost efficient way of getting money into the hands of the working poor, since it doesn't have to be paid to the government first, processed, filtered through qualifying criteria, and sent back to the recipients. Cutting the ridiculous subsidies would substantially reduce the size of government.
Realistically, such raises would only cost the employer $0.65 for each additional dollar paid, because the increased wages are a tax deduction to the employer. If the employer pays 35% income tax, then the resultant reduction in profits won't be subject to income tax, thereby reducing the company's tax burden, but more importantly, reducing the cost of such raises to the employer.
We not are being beaten by anybody. We are being beaten by ourselves. For instance, when the Libtards protects our greedy unions and the unions run up the cost of goods and services then it is no wonder we can compete in a world economy.
Even more socialistic Ireland knows that it is better to have a low corporate tax rate than the US and because of that it is causing American corporations to relocate there.
Hong Kong is the economic model that works. Very little government interference in the free market and the result is tremendous economic growth, economic freedom and wealth creation. We use to be more like that and because of it the relatively more capitalistic US had twice the post WWII economic growth rate of the more socialistic European countries.
Nowadays due to the fact that the combined cost of government in this country is 40% of the GDP and we have have millions of pages of regulations and we have high taxation we can't even achieve 3% annual economic growth and the poverty rate is creasing. Big government has been a failure at producing jobs in this country and we need to stop it.
My suburb is over 70% black. How about yours?
I agree- it explains your racism. You hate your neighbors.
it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.
I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.
What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.
Your one link you posted claimed we were just waiting for trickle down.
See you don't even understand simple examples.
I've used very simple examples, posted several studies supporting what I am saying, posted economists explaining why... You choose to ignore the facts.
No, I pointed to the only facts that make a difference whether the restaurant stays open or not.
Your restaurant cannot stay open because poorer people don't have enough money to dine there. So our government takes all the money away from millionaires and billionaires. Does the restaurant now remain open? Will more poor people eat there now that the rich don't have any money either?
"The fact there is lots of inequality and only the one guy can afford to eat at the restaurant means the restaurant fails. That is why too much inequality slows an economy. The restaurant needs lots of people who can afford to eat out. "
Then the solution is to take money from those who have it and give it to those that don't, right? This is what you are getting at (but don't want to admit it) that in order to solve this problem, we need massive wealth redistribution.
No, I pointed to the only facts that make a difference whether the restaurant stays open or not.
Your restaurant cannot stay open because poorer people don't have enough money to dine there. So our government takes all the money away from millionaires and billionaires. Does the restaurant now remain open? Will more poor people eat there now that the rich don't have any money either?
"The fact there is lots of inequality and only the one guy can afford to eat at the restaurant means the restaurant fails. That is why too much inequality slows an economy. The restaurant needs lots of people who can afford to eat out. "
Then the solution is to take money from those who have it and give it to those that don't, right? This is what you are getting at (but don't want to admit it) that in order to solve this problem, we need massive wealth redistribution.
We're saying STOP taking money from the middle class and using it to subsidize those working for the 1%, whose wages have risen by over 200% since 1980. Raising the minimum wage would do that and give people who haven't had a real raise since Reagan came into office. The income of those who have taken more than their fair share of the profits, will go down, but their wealth won't. But by raising taxes on the 1% so they pay the same percentages as their workers, they won't get to keep as much in future.
Gosh you babble stupidly. Is your only defense making things up? The fact is too much inequality slows the economy. In our little example the restaurant goes out of business. What we need to do obviously is raise up the poor. How to do that is up for debate. One thing I would do was already mentioned. But rather than give corporations tax breaks you prefer the government continues to grow and tax payers subsidize the employees of billionaires. Your thinking is why the repubs do nothing. All they believe is wrong and damaging to the economy.
Again, government forced wealth redistribution.
Working people don't "subsidize" anybody. That's the way companies divide THEIR wealth that THEY created. All companies seek is to be the most profitable, and that takes talent at the top--not the bottom, because anybody at the bottom can do those jobs. Nobody at the bottom can attract investors to the company nor make it expand.
There is this fallacy that leftists believe whereas if you take money from the top, they just dig deeper into their pockets and do with less. That's never happened before and it won't happen in the future. When you take money from the top, they recoup that money in other ways.
They may cut healthcare benefits or make employees pay more towards it. They may increase the cost of their product or service which of course gets passed on to us. They may just move some or all operations overseas. They may make investments in automation as many companies have already. But they will do something, and those at the top won't suffer one bit.
No, that's where you're wrong. Taking money from the middle class to subsidize the wages of the poor is forced wealth redistribution, and it's redistributing that wealth upward, to the 1%. The result is our stagnant economy because the rich aren't spending, they're not investing in new jobs at home, because there is minimal growth at home. The American consumer has no savings, and no income to buy their goods. They are now working on markets in developing economies, where new money means new markets.
Companies are facing higher costs for everything but labour. Any increase in wages goes to the top. The domestic economy cannot maintain it's growth without a healthy and vibrant middle class.
Corporate America has bled the working class white. They have no savings and they're barely getting by after 30 years with no real increase in wages. Now they're doing the same thing to the middle class.
When workers are no longer receiving earned income credits, and have more money, there is plenty of pent up consumer demand for goods and services, which will boost sales and create jobs, but without sufficient income at the bottom to provide basic living expenses, the economy will not improve.
Again, government forced wealth redistribution.
Working people don't "subsidize" anybody. That's the way companies divide THEIR wealth that THEY created. All companies seek is to be the most profitable, and that takes talent at the top--not the bottom, because anybody at the bottom can do those jobs. Nobody at the bottom can attract investors to the company nor make it expand.
There is this fallacy that leftists believe whereas if you take money from the top, they just dig deeper into their pockets and do with less. That's never happened before and it won't happen in the future. When you take money from the top, they recoup that money in other ways.
They may cut healthcare benefits or make employees pay more towards it. They may increase the cost of their product or service which of course gets passed on to us. They may just move some or all operations overseas. They may make investments in automation as many companies have already. But they will do something, and those at the top won't suffer one bit.
No, that's where you're wrong. Taking money from the middle class to subsidize the wages of the poor is forced wealth redistribution, and it's redistributing that wealth upward, to the 1%. The result is our stagnant economy because the rich aren't spending, they're not investing in new jobs at home, because there is minimal growth at home. The American consumer has no savings, and no income to buy their goods. They are now working on markets in developing economies, where new money means new markets.
Companies are facing higher costs for everything but labour. Any increase in wages goes to the top. The domestic economy cannot maintain it's growth without a healthy and vibrant middle class.
Corporate America has bled the working class white. They have no savings and they're barely getting by after 30 years with no real increase in wages. Now they're doing the same thing to the middle class.
When workers are no longer receiving earned income credits, and have more money, there is plenty of pent up consumer demand for goods and services, which will boost sales and create jobs, but without sufficient income at the bottom to provide basic living expenses, the economy will not improve.
