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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That is only true if you only count federal income taxes, super dupe. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 18 and 29% and the richest have been ending up with all the New Wealth for 35 years now, and you are an idiot yes.I don't believe your lying I just believe you were brainwashed to the point of total idiocy. On this front, Democrats want to text the rich more like their fair share and invest in training and cheap education For technical jobs that are going going begging under this stupid GOP policy, dumbass. We also want to cut taxes in a real way on the middle class and the working class so we can generate some demand for product. The last thing we need is more tax cuts on the bloated rich and giant corporations. Idiot.Why do you deny what you are and what you believe in?Why do conservatives make shit up and lie all the time ?
Correct. We certainly don't want to give tax cuts to those who have been paying all of the taxes for the rest of us. The people that don't pay taxes should get a cut. The question is, how do you cut something that nobody was giving in the first place?
You are playing both sides of the argumentWell you can't have it both ways"Offering them?"Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
What are they entitled to?
You can't condemn Democrats for not doing enough for blacks and then say....not my problem when asked what you would do better
Have it both ways?
I was a Democrat for most of my life.
Our Politicians should not be offering anyone anything for votes.
This has nothing to do with skin color.
I've never been against assisting someone.
I would expect someone to eventually contribute to their own well being.
The poor are not stupidWhy is this thread still going on? The question was already answered, the poor vote for democrats, so democrats want for there to be more poor people. Duhhh....
Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
There is no unemployment only underpayment under Capitalism.We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers
Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it
Then you'll have to compensate businesses for carrying net loss jobs.
Here's the thing. Business exists to create a profit. It does not exist to do social engineering, it does not exist to provide a fiscal safety net to anyone, or to guarantee any lifestyle to anyone. Thus, trying to force business to pay artificially high wages is a losing proposition. Business will either raise prices or reduce workforces to compensate.
If you want to guarantee people a lifestyle, the honest way is to put it to the people to vote, raise taxes to pay for, and implement welfare.
Bottom line, if you want business to pay high wages, the job must generate enough revenue to pay for itself or be a justified cost. Companies cannot stay in business paying more for work than it generates.
We just cut their taxes in half
Taxpayers should not have to subsidize a low wage workforce
That's something we both agree on. Cut those benefits and those people will try harder to find better work or work more hours like we used to years ago.
or alleged wars the right wing refuses to pay for.Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.
We all pay taxes in some way or another.just socialization of a national tax cut for the rich that the People get to pay for through increased debt?Financing it on the Peoples' dime is worse. How can the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer be an Individual problem.I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay
But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous
No, it is financed by incentivizing corporate behavior that reduces poverty
What did a 50% corporate tax cut incentivize? Greed
Exactly
More rob from the poor and pass it on to the rich
How does one rob people that don't have anything to rob in the first place?
Why is it lawful to not provide regular benefits for temporary jobs, even on a prorated basis. Capitalists get to exempt themselves for low wage, temporary jobs from having to provide health care? Why not end the distinction between part-time and full-time for benefits purposes and inform Capitalists, it is an Individual problem not an Institutional problem.Which job offers unlimited hours?Most food stamp recipients DO have jobs. Are you really that stupid or is it an act to get on SS.
Obviously they are not working enough hours to feed themselves, so what's your point?
Temp services usually do. Either that or find a second job. I used to have many second jobs when I was younger working for lower wages.
Not even a tax cut or other social programs that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor?Well you can't have it both ways"Offering them?"Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
What are they entitled to?
You can't condemn Democrats for not doing enough for blacks and then say....not my problem when asked what you would do better
Have it both ways?
I was a Democrat for most of my life.
Our Politicians should not be offering anyone anything for votes.
This has nothing to do with skin color.
I've never been against assisting someone.
I would expect someone to eventually contribute to their own well being.
or alleged wars the right wing refuses to pay for.Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.
Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.
We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers
Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it
No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.
A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.
But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.
So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.
Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wageAnd we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.
You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?
The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages
Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.
Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.
The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again
$15 is reasonable
You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.
It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs
The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers
It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?
I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay
But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous
That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?
We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years
It has in many states.
the right wing was for it, because the rich are worth it, under any form of Capitalism.or alleged wars the right wing refuses to pay for.Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.
What are Republicans offering them?
Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.
Yes and the six trillion that O allowed through QE to wall street.
Don't believe in Capitalism?We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers
Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it
No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.
A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.
But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.
So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.
It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.
Don't believe in Capitalism?We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers
Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it
No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.
A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.
But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.
So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.
It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.
Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.
Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.Don't believe in Capitalism?We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers
Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it
No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.
A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.
But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.
So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.
It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.
Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.
Don't believe in math?
Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.
Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wageYou realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?
The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages
Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.
Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.
The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again
$15 is reasonable
You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.
You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.
