TPS Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 watching the documentary "american winter" on hbo and this venture capitalist is interviewed: "if it were true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs". seems logical to me. where's the flaw in his reasoning? Hmmm...consumer demand drives job creation. Who would've thought.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Liberal policies funnel tons of money to the rich. Just look at Wal-Mart. They sell cheap crap. Most of their customers are low income. Many of them are spending either the money they should have paid to the government in taxes, or their welfare dollars, or at least money they have in access because their welfare/lack of taxes is subsidizing another aspect of their life. Now all that welfare money was taxed from the rich, or taxed from the middle class, or borrowed from China. When the rich get their own money back its water under the bridge, as they are also getting the middle classes and the Chinese’s money. Needless to say the Waltons are huge Democratic supporters and donors. This is true of all retail products and suppliers. Tobacco and alcohol companies benefit hugely from welfare programs because it gives the poor extra coin to spend on those items. Verizon and AT&T would suffer if people ahd to cancel their smart phone planes to buy food instead – do you follow me? The Middles class is being destroyed by taxes, which robs them of their pay, and has also destroys the job opportunities here. Meanwhile, the poor will always be poor when they are dependant, and the rich will keep on accepting all of that entitlement money at their stores or other places of business. But keep on believing that 'taxing the rich' will fix everything. It will only make it worse. Only natural market conditions with the government guaranteeing equal opportunity (not equal results) will work. Nothing else. This was an interesting post. You argue that taxes from the rich and middle class that go to the poor get funneled back to the rich by the spending of the poor. This is "water under the bridge" for the rich, but the middle class essentially get screwed. While all of that sounds correct, you conclusion doesn't follow. If the taxes of the rich come back to them in the form of spending by the poor, why would taxing the rich "only make it worse"? It seems your logical conclusion would be, keep taxing the rich to funnel money to the poor, lower taxes for the middle class, and all of that spending by both the middle and the poor will come back to the rich in the end. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 No, it would come from Businesses and then transfer over to employees. I think that is kinda obvious isn't it? I expected you to think this through a bit more. The money woldn't magically appear. The extra $11 billion would come from either higher prices on the goods, or owners taking a $11 bn hit to the bottom line. And again, the industries that employ minimum wage workers tend to be concentrated in very low margin sectors that the added $11 billion could wipe out all the profits. And while birdog thinks he stumbled onto the definitive proof that increasing minimum wage won't have an impact, the 13-yr old study is not conclusive in what would happen if increased minimum wage was codified to perpetually increase to a "living wage" concept. And here are some updated statistics that show more conclusively that the minimum wage argument is more of a political issue than an economic one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 it's like i tell people trying to lose weight....anybody that says they have the answer is a damn liar. but what i do know, is what were doing isn't working. It isn't working? What exactly isn't working? All you point to is the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class. How does this translate into a challenge for the middle class? To me, it appears that the middle class is doing just fine. I was born 52 year ago next month so I have a half a century of first hand experience (crap I think I just ruined my day) with the middle class. When I was growing up did we have a TV in every room? Did each child have a computer, video console phone in their pocket? Did we get a new car every three years? No, we drove them typically until the rust came through the floorboards or they were about to blow up. No, I think the middle class is doing just fine. But if it makes you feel better to champion their "cause" go right ahead. It's so 2000 to vilify the rich. Question for you. How is the income gap between the rich and middle class adversely affecting the middle class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 it's like i tell people trying to lose weight....anybody that says they have the answer is a damn liar. but what i do know, is what were doing isn't working. That's ridiculous. Everyone with an IQ over 50 has the answer for how to lose weight. The problem is that people lack the self control to implement the solution. But in your world, that makes them victims. It isn't working? What exactly isn't working? All you point to is the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class. How does this translate into a challenge for the middle class? To me, it appears that the middle class is doing just fine. I was born 52 year ago next month so I have a half a century of first hand experience (crap I think I just ruined my day) with the middle class. When I was growing up did we have a TV in every room? Did each child have a computer, video console phone in their pocket? Did we get a new car every three years? No, we drove them typically until the rust came through the floorboards or they were about to blow up. No, I think the middle class is doing just fine. But if it makes you feel better to champion their "cause" go right ahead. It's so 2000 to vilify the rich. Question for you. How is the income gap between the rich and middle class adversely affecting the middle class? Bingo. You never hear them compare the standard of living for the middle class 40 years ago vs. the middle class today. It's all based on envy of those who have more. Apple is selling tens of millions of units a month -- how is that possible when only a tiny fraction of "rich" people have all the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 It isn't working? What exactly isn't working? What he means is it isn't working to his liking. You're trying to rationalize this with a Gold-level card-carrying member of the "It's Just A Drop In The Bucket Club." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 What he means is it isn't working to his liking. You're trying to rationalize this with a Gold-level card-carrying member of the "It's Just A Drop In The Bucket Club." Of course it's not working to his liking but he has yet to explain what his liking is. What is missing from the lives of the middle class that can be had by taxing the rich more or reducing their income?? The answer is...NOTHING. It will just reduce the income gap and will make him (and I guess the middle class) feel all warm and fuzzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Of course it's not working to his liking but he has yet to explain what his liking is. HIs liking is class warfare so the takers will like him. If you told him today that min. wage was being increased to $12/hour, he would find something wrong with that. If you then raised it the next day to $15/hour, he would find something wrong with that. He doesn't want minimium wage raised as much as he wants a reason to complain about everyone making more than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Bingo. You never hear them compare the standard of living for the middle class 40 years ago vs. the middle class today. It's all based on envy of those who have more. Apple is selling tens of millions of units a month -- how is that possible when only a tiny fraction of "rich" people have all the money? The middle class creates complacency. If I'd work as hard as my parents did with my current income, I could probably retire by 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 The middle class creates complacency. If I'd work as hard as my parents did with my current income, I could probably retire by 35. Fortunately the left wingers understand how to battle that complacency: by putting people who would have been characterized as 'middle class' 40 years ago on food stamps. Nothing makes people hop out of bed in the morning and be productive like gubmint handouts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I expected you to think this through a bit more. The money woldn't magically appear. The extra $11 billion would come from either higher prices on the goods, or owners taking a $11 bn hit to the bottom line. And again, the industries that employ minimum wage workers tend to be concentrated in very low margin sectors that the added $11 billion could wipe out all the profits. I didn't imply that it would "magically appear". I said that it would be transferred from employer to employee. And I would fully expect some of those increases to be passed down to the consumer. However, what I wouldn't expect is that the entirety of it would be passed down, there is enough competition and profit right now for some of those costs to be absorbed. Like I said earlier, I do believe there would have to be an honest study from neutral sources in looking into the impact of raising the minimum wage. From my perspective, I believe that a move to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour would be a net positive for the economy. I don't have any study or proof to support what I'm saying, other than my own intuition. I sorta like the way the Germans view their relationships between employer and employee. I'm not saying I agree with everything they do, but there are certainly elements of their economy that we could look to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I didn't imply that it would "magically appear". I said that it would be transferred from employer to employee. And I would fully expect some of those increases to be passed down to the consumer. However, what I wouldn't expect is that the entirety of it would be passed down, there is enough competition and profit right now for some of those costs to be absorbed. Like I said earlier, I do believe there would have to be an honest study from neutral sources in looking into the impact of raising the minimum wage. From my perspective, I believe that a move to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour would be a net positive for the economy. I don't have any study or proof to support what I'm saying, other than my own intuition. I sorta like the way the Germans view their relationships between employer and employee. I'm not saying I agree with everything they do, but there are certainly elements of their economy that we could look to. Really?!?! Take a guess how many mom and pop restaurants are just going to close up shop if you increase a majority of their payroll by over 20%. Keep in mind the whole wait staff for most restaurants is paid minimum wage. I know waiters that are on a minimum wage that make over $100k a year. Granted they don't work in mom and pop places but there are higher end independent restaurants that are doing a good business with VERY slim margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Really?!?! Take a guess how many mom and pop restaurants are just going to close up shop if you increase a majority of their payroll by over 20%. Keep in mind the whole wait staff for most restaurants is paid minimum wage. I know waiters that are on a minimum wage that make over $100k a year. Granted they don't work in mom and pop places but there are higher end independent restaurants that are doing a good business with VERY slim margins. Chef, seriously man! Are you having a problem comprehending ****??? I said it like 3 !@#$ing times and I even specifically responded to this same issue... Here it is AGAIN! Maybe a two tiered Minimum wage plan, one for small businesses, and a second for corporations. Or maybe they can make it two tiered based off the amount of employees that are employed. I don't know, but I believe that many of the corporations are able to easily withstand a minimal increase. But as someone a little earlier pointed out, most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage as it is, so I'm not quite sure how many people it would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Chef, seriously man! Are you having a problem comprehending ****??? I said it like 3 !@#$ing times and I even specifically responded to this same issue... Here it is AGAIN! A two tiered minimum wage plan??? I missed it the first time because I blocked it out of my mind as too !@#$ing stupid. Yeah, let's complicate things more, that always makes things better. !@#$, let's make it three tiered, hell !@#$ing four tiered. Kind of like razors, the more blades the better. http://www.theonion.com/articles/!@#$-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 A two tiered minimum wage plan??? I missed it the first time because I blocked it out of my mind as too !@#$ing stupid. Yeah, let's complicate things more, that always makes things better. !@#$, let's make it three tiered, hell !@#$ing four tiered. Kind of like razors, the more blades the better. http://www.theonion....e-blades,11056/ So, two is now complicated? I mean it's only one more than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 So, two is now complicated? I mean it's only one more than one. Yeah, more complicated than letting the market determine wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 So, two is now complicated? I mean it's only one more than one. So your solution is a government mandated wage related caste system? Good grief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) What The Federal Government Can Learn From Some of the States’ “Stand Aside” Policies The Economist has a good article this week about the contrast between “the America that works” and “the America that doesn’t,” as they put it. Interestingly, the America that doesn’t work is in large part thanks to the federal government, and the America that works is mostly happening thanks to state polices. Here is a description of the dysfunctional half of America: Its debt is rising, its population is ageing in a budget-threatening way, its schools are mediocre by international standards, its infrastructure rickety, its regulations dense, its tax code byzantine, its immigration system hare-brained—and it has fallen from first position in the World Economic Forum’s competitiveness rankings to seventh in just four years. Last year both Mr Obama and his election opponent, Mitt Romney, complained about the American dream slipping away. Today, the country’s main businesses sit on nearly $2 trillion in cash, afraid to invest in part because corporate bosses cannot imagine any of Washington’s feuding partisans fixing anything. But there’s also the America that works. It’s one starting to improve competitiveness without waiting for the federal government to do it for them. It’s composed of firms that aren’t waiting for the federal government to bail them out, and are instead going out and improving their existing business, starting new ones, and getting ahead of the competition. Here is an example: Although many countries possess big reserves of oil and gas trapped in impermeable rocks, American businesses worked out how to free that energy and then commercialised that technology at a rapid pace; the resulting “shale gale” is now billowing the economy’s sails. Some of the money for fracking technology came from the federal government, but the shale revolution has largely happened despite Mr Obama and his tribe of green regulators. It has been driven from the bottom up—by entrepreneurs and by states like North Dakota competing to lure in investors with notably more fervour than, say, France. The America that works is also one where states have understood that it is time to try (ever so timidly) a new model: This fits a pattern. Pressed for cash, states are adopting sweeping reforms as they vie to attract investments and migrants. Louisiana and Nebraska want to abolish corporate and personal income taxes. Kansas has created a post called “the Repealer” to get rid of red tape and pays a “bounty” to high schools for every vocational qualification their students earn in certain fields; Ohio has privatised its economic-development agency; Virginia has just reformed its petrol-tax system. In this second, can-do America, creative policymaking is being applied to the very problems Congress runs away from, like infrastructure spending. While the federal government twiddles its thumbs, states and cities, which are much shorter of cash, are coming up with new ways to raise money for roads, bridges and schools. Chicago has a special trust to drum up private funds to refurbish decrepit city buildings. Indiana has turned to privatisation to raise money for road-building. Edited March 21, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 So your solution is a government mandated wage related caste system? Good grief... Yes I get it, you hate the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes I get it, you hate the minimum wage. No !@#$stick we hate the government mandating things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts