Yeah...about that $15 minimum wage .....

[VinylScratch]

Also, Liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone with surplus money wants to pay for their shit they refuse to buy themselves through a job. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them that inflation will kick in after a couple years and basically negate the minimum wage increase. Or that businesses who don't feel their job is worth 15 dollars will just downsize and they'll earn nothing.

If you want to talk about livable wages. We can start by reducing how much taxes get taken from people which comes from simplifying the tax code. We can also QUIT TRYING TO SUBSIDIZING LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Can probably also save a bit if we'd quit trying to allocate tax dollars towards taking care of people who either don't belong in our country legally, or are "poor helpless refugees".

You'd think somewhere the reality that if you just reduce how much you rip off people for taxes, you don't need to sharply up the minimum wage just so they can get by. You basically raise the minimum wage by allowing people who work to take home more of the money they worked to receive.

Though nah, like I said. People who believe in this magical 15 minimum wage nonsense are also the same people who believe we need to expand government, need to subsidize healthcare, bring in more immigrants/refugees, need to also take care of said immigrants/refugees. All of these things which require tax dollars to be allocated towards.

So grats, you argue for a minimum wage increase that won't do ANYTHING for you because taxes will just take more of it to the point you're making about the same, maybe a dollar more. While also believing we should support things which would increase how much you are taxed and therefore reducing how much you take home. Like you have to be illiterate or just stuck in fantasy world to not see it.

Though as they say: "You can't reason someone out of a belief that they did not initially reason themselves into."

[melodramocracy]

You have a right to pursue good health, nobody is going to argue against that. If you want to eat healthy, or poorly, that's on you and that is your right to make that decision. However you DO NOT have a right to healthcare. You have a privilege to purchase healthcare because it's a service, or otherwise a "good" they sell. Also, universal healthcare isn't morally justifiable when you have to break the non-aggression principle to achieve it. In this instance, NAP is broken because it uses either force, or threat of force to make people pay the extra taxes to fund this. Force or threat of force being prison to people who don't pay taxes.

One of the duties of gov't is ensuring the basic well being of the populous. Privatizing healthcare has been, and will continue to be, a shirk of this duty. Enjoy

[Tehshocka]

That's not true at all. In fact, Warren Buffet has gone on record to disclose that he pays only an effective tax rate of 16%.

You seriously believe Bill Gates have payed 391 billion dollars in taxes on his road to his current personal net worth of 86 billion? News flash, he didn't. The share of taxes payed by the most wealthy people have declined dramatically since the 1970's. You'd have to been living in a cave for all these decades not to know that.

Sweet baby Jesus don't read everything that Vox/HuffPoop/WaPoop tell you. Here is the chart I was referencing.

[Deleted]

You mean like how Liberals think they have an inherent "right" to goods and services and therefore believe they are justified in using any means necessary to force people to buy things for them just because they slap the word "right" on it when in reality it isn't a right?

You have a right to pursue good health, nobody is going to argue against that. If you want to eat healthy, or poorly, that's on you and that is your right to make that decision. However you DO NOT have a right to healthcare. You have a privilege to purchase healthcare because it's a service, or otherwise a "good" they sell. Also, universal healthcare isn't morally justifiable when you have to break the non-aggression principle to achieve it. In this instance, NAP is broken because it uses either force, or threat of force to make people pay the extra taxes to fund this. Force or threat of force being prison to people who don't pay taxes.

You are correct. People dont really seem to grasp what rights are.

Are you really trying to lecture a bunch of marxists about the NAP? Good luck.

[Tehshocka]

Also, Liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone with surplus money wants to pay for their shit they refuse to buy themselves through a job. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them that inflation will kick in after a couple years and basically negate the minimum wage increase. Or that businesses who don't feel their job is worth 15 dollars will just downsize and they'll earn nothing.

If you want to talk about livable wages. We can start by reducing how much taxes get taken from people which comes from simplifying the tax code. We can also QUIT TRYING TO SUBSIDIZING LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Can probably also save a bit if we'd quit trying to allocate tax dollars towards taking care of people who either don't belong in our country legally, or are "poor helpless refugees".

You'd think somewhere the reality that if you just reduce how much you rip off people for taxes, you don't need to sharply up the minimum wage just so they can get by. You basically raise the minimum wage by allowing people who work to take home more of the money they worked to receive.

Though nah, like I said. People who believe in this magical 15 minimum wage nonsense are also the same people who believe we need to expand government, need to subsidize healthcare, bring in more immigrants/refugees, need to also take care of said immigrants/refugees. All of these things which require tax dollars to be allocated towards.

So grats, you argue for a minimum wage increase that won't do ANYTHING for you because taxes will just take more of it to the point you're making about the same, maybe a dollar more. While also believing we should support things which would increase how much you are taxed and therefore reducing how much you take home. Like you have to be illiterate or just stuck in fantasy world to not see it.

Though as they say: "You can't reason someone out of a belief that they did not initially reason themselves into."

I am for a flat 13% tax. No loop holes.

I dont give a shit if you made 100 dollars in a year. You are paying 13 bucks to the government.

[Torrasque]

Personally, I don't like how so many people have to be on welfare, paid by my taxes, because companies do not want to pay a livable wage.

[VinylScratch]

Flipping a burger should not grant you some alienable right to not struggle. Learn a trade, go to school, don't get/or get someone knocked up. Nothing is owed to you. Your life is what you make it.

Yeah but these people haven't figured out the basic reality of why a job even exists. Because you working that position creates surplus value for the guy paying you. When they don't see your job's value as equal or greater than what they pay you, the job won't exist. If I pay someone 10 dollars to mow my lawn, I do that because to me the extra time is more valuable than the 10 dollars. If that person starts demanding 20 dollars, or 15 and I feel the job isn't worth 15 dollars I won't pay him. I'll cut the grass myself.

They seem to think their job is valued at what the minimum wage is valued at. In reality their value is much lower and what will happen is when a company decides it's not worth paying kids 15 dollars to take orders at McDonald's, it'll just use machines and allow the customers to punch in their own orders. Being a cashier isn't a hard job, it's literally pressing buttons on a screen. Customers at Wal-Mart check themselves out these days. Cashiers are an obsolete position. Upping the minimum wage to 15 just means the company is likely going to fire the person if they feel a self-checkout is going to save more.

[Vash The Stampede]

It shows there's something wrong with the economy when we're about to go from $7 to $15 in a short span of time.

[Taso]

That's not true at all. In fact, Warren Buffet has gone on record to disclose that he pays only an effective tax rate of 16%.

You seriously believe Bill Gates have payed 391 billion dollars in taxes on his road to his current personal net worth of 86 billion? News flash, he didn't. The share of taxes payed by the most wealthy people have declined dramatically since the 1970's. You'd have to been living in a cave for all these decades not to know that.

You realize buffet and bill do tax write offs right? Anyone can if they know about it. If you read the 70s really hard enough you'll see the era of stagflation high unemployment and a general decrease of everything. That is why it looks so good untill you dig further and realize it was terrible. But sure high gas prices soviet invasions fear of nukes oil embargo I'm sure everyone can just glance over that. Also the decline has to do with the Kennedy tax cuts 20% on the wealthiestwhich a lot of democrats apparently gloss over.

[Zarc]

You mean like how Liberals think they have an inherent "right" to goods and services and therefore believe they are justified in using any means necessary to force people to buy things for them just because they slap the word "right" on it when in reality it isn't a right?

You have a right to pursue good health, nobody is going to argue against that. If you want to eat healthy, or poorly, that's on you and that is your right to make that decision. However you DO NOT have a right to healthcare. You have a privilege to purchase healthcare because it's a service, or otherwise a "good" they sell. Also, universal healthcare isn't morally justifiable when you have to break the non-aggression principle to achieve it. In this instance, NAP is broken because it uses either force, or threat of force to make people pay the extra taxes to fund this. Force or threat of force being prison to people who don't pay taxes.

We agreed to make property rights a thing. And education. Why not right to healthcare? (Actually most of us already agreed to that a long time ago, just not you guys in America. ).

I mean if you disagree with the concept that having rights enshrined in law makes us as individuals more free than not, then you should go for some kind of absolutist vision of freedom that would be anarchism where there's no laws. Everyone is free in an absolutist sense of the word as there's no rules. Of course that absolutist sense of freedom means that anyone could bash your head in and take your stuff. Personally I think defining a set of rights in law makes us more free. We can debate what those rights should be, if you agree with the basic concept of our society you must acknowledge that debate as legitimate.

[Tehshocka]

It shows there's something wrong with the economy when we're about to go from $7 to $15 in a short span of time.

The Dow is over 22k. Unemployment is at 4.3%

There is zero wrong with the economy right now.

[Thage]

Person with vested interest commissions a study to accentuate the negative. Other studies on minimum wage increases over the last 50 years including studies carried out in a similar time frame to this one find minimum wage increases generally have a net benefit to overall buying power, which drives job creation to match increased demand. Right wingers take the anti-vax approach and discard the pile of studies for Only the Lonely here because it fits their narrative and economic bias.

Never change, Gen-OT.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like how Liberals think they have an inherent "right" to goods and services and therefore believe they are justified in using any means necessary to force people to buy things for them just because they slap the word "right" on it when in reality it isn't a right?

You have a right to pursue good health, nobody is going to argue against that. If you want to eat healthy, or poorly, that's on you and that is your right to make that decision. However you DO NOT have a right to healthcare. You have a privilege to purchase healthcare because it's a service, or otherwise a "good" they sell. Also, universal healthcare isn't morally justifiable when you have to break the non-aggression principle to achieve it. In this instance, NAP is broken because it uses either force, or threat of force to make people pay the extra taxes to fund this. Force or threat of force being prison to people who don't pay taxes.

Do you hold similar views to making use of fire and police services? Some services people provide are necessary for providing safety and upholding the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This includes healthcare as regular doctor visits and hospital stays in cases of emergency are necessary to maintain a quality of life that isn't spent trying to soldier through illness or just hoping that fracture will heal right on its own. Same as if your house is burning down--you are entitled to the services of the firefighters, or if you are robbed--you are entitled to the services of the police. In the case of universal healthcare, not only is the cost lower per-person in literally every country that has it (not only because hospital/doctor costs are regulated, but because the government is in a stronger bargaining position against pharmaceutical companies that prevents them from price-gouging life-saving medication by 100% or higher in a nearly-monopolized market like Epi-Pen or HIV treatments), but as everyone's taxes go toward funding it, it becomes a service similar to police and fire rescue; right now, the only emergency service that can bankrupt you for saving your life is a hospital visit.

I look forward to hearing you discuss why it is morally-justifiable that someone should make the choice between bankruptcy or treating their illnesses, or having a broken bone set, simply because their income cannot provide for health coverage and the rapid inflation in the American health industry (inflation unseen anywhere else outside third-world countries) seen ever since Nixon allowed health care to be a for-profit industry rather than enforcing non-profit regulation.

[-Nurot]

Yeah but these people haven't figured out the basic reality of why a job even exists. Because you working that position creates surplus value for the guy paying you. When they don't see your job's value as equal or greater than what they pay you, the job won't exist. If I pay someone 10 dollars to mow my lawn, I do that because to me the extra time is more valuable than the 10 dollars. If that person starts demanding 20 dollars, or 15 and I feel the job isn't worth 15 dollars I won't pay him. I'll cut the grass myself.

They seem to think their job is valued at what the minimum wage is valued at. In reality their value is much lower and what will happen is when a company decides it's not worth paying kids 15 dollars to take orders at McDonald's, it'll just use machines and allow the customers to punch in their own orders. Being a cashier isn't a hard job, it's literally pressing buttons on a screen. Customers at Wal-Mart check themselves out these days. Cashiers are an obsolete position. Upping the minimum wage to 15 just means the company is likely going to fire the person if they feel a self-checkout is going to save more.

The owner's and CEOs of places like McDonalds will never flip the burgers themselves even if labor becomes too expensive, they'd just sell off and cash out for the millions/billions and walk away. Their goal is to pay their workers as low of a wage as possible and get away with it. What would you do if you had someone knock on your door and offer to cut your lawn for 2$ instead of the guy you were paying 10$ to, even though you've been using him a while and he does a great job? Even if you wouldn't replace him (sounds like you would) the higher ups at chain stores/restaurants sure would in a heartbeat if they could get away with it legally and not have their workers picket.

The worth of labor to them is as low as they can get it versus how low employee morale gets before they have to raise it to be competitive in labor. It's no longer about a "fair" or livable wage. If everyone who needed to support themselves solely on those wages between the ages of 25-40, suddenly went out tomorrow and magically found livable wage jobs, people like you would be crying because the fast food places have shut their doors and you couldn't get your food on the way home.

It's like the first half of the last century in America never existed. You being able to shop for cheap crap at Walmart or Target, and being able to drive through a drive-thru on the way home to pick up some quick food may feel like a right to you, but if that whole culture suddenly disappeared because the employees actually all bettered themselves like you suggested, you'd have no idea what to do.

We agreed to make property rights a thing. And education. Why not right to healthcare? (Actually most of us already agreed to that a long time ago, just not you guys in America. ).

I mean if you disagree with the concept that having rights enshrined in law makes us as individuals more free than not, then you should go for some kind of absolutist vision of freedom that would be anarchism where there's no laws. Everyone is free in an absolutist sense of the word as there's no rules. Of course that absolutist sense of freedom means that anyone could bash your head in and take your stuff. Personally I think defining a set of rights in law makes us more free. We can debate what those rights should be, if you agree with the basic concept of our society you must acknowledge that debate as legitimate.

A portion of Americans believe that we have no real rights, except to free speech (including the right to, insult, belittle, taunt, and mock simply because we can) and guns, everything else is "earned". Even if it's inherited that counts as earned. People who work 80 hours a week and make minimum wage (not livable) are sub-human and just need to better themselves. Clearly because they make more money they work harder than they do. They need to "earn" their keep like they did to get there. The irony is someone working at McDonald could never afford a college degree, that was paid for by their parents, to get that same desk job that pays 50k+ a year. All of it is "earned" through a piece of paper, while they do physical labor 80 hours a week ensuring they work themselves to an early grave

The whole logic is, I'm better than you, be like me and then you deserve to make enough money to live, until then we'll just enjoy the conveniences and services you provide at while taking it all for granted.

There are literally not enough jobs for the entire workforce who make under a livable wage, to go out and better themselves. It's literally not possible. The places that didn't pay enough would shutter, and everywhere that paid livable wages would have too many employees. People are taught not to quit a job, util they have another job (good practice), but it leaves many people who screwed up their chance for education, (can't afford, picked the wrong degree, slacked off in high school, went straight into the work force) in a rut where they may be supporting their entire family on such a job/jobs. But, hey fuck them they deserve it....

[VinylScratch]

Personally, I don't like how so many people have to be on welfare, paid by my taxes, because companies do not want to pay a livable wage.

Less people would be on Welfare too if we actually bothered to make an environment for them where they have a chance to succeed. Welfare is the equivalent to throwing money on a fire and hoping you throw enough, fast enough to smother the flame. We've all heard the old line: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Welfare falls into this exact same category. This is why Trump is so popular with the Middle Class, because they actually work for their money and Trump is pushing in a direction that would allow them to enjoy more fruit of their labor. This is also why the Left vehemently hates him because less taxes means less votes they basically buy through keeping people reliant on Welfare.

The only issue is a majority of Democrat voters are people who are reliant on these systems. Note what word I used there, I didn't say "benefit from" I said "Reliant" as in this is the lifevest keeping these people from drowning. Obviously the Democrats don't want you to create an environment where people won't be reliant on these systems. If anything, they'll push for things that bring more people into reliance on Welfare because people who need welfare, likely are going to vote for people who will expand welfare.

Also the other reason Trump is popular with the Middle Class is because the Democrats make anyone who actually works for a wage feel terribly about wanting to keep more of what THEY EARNED FOR THEMSELVES. Oh, you want slightly reduced taxes so you can have a livable wage? Well you're inconsiderate of all the immigrants and unemployed people dependent on your tax dollars to fund their healthcare. Even though you can't fund your own healthcare, we're still forcing you to pay for theirs.

[Tehshocka]

Less people would be on Welfare too if we actually bothered to make an environment for them where they have a chance to succeed. Welfare is the equivalent to throwing money on a fire and hoping you throw enough, fast enough to smother the flame. We've all heard the old line: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Welfare falls into this exact same category. This is why Trump is so popular with the Middle Class, because they actually work for their money and Trump is pushing in a direction that would allow them to enjoy more fruit of their labor. This is also why the Left vehemently hates him because less taxes means less votes they basically buy through keeping people reliant on Welfare.

The only issue is a majority of Democrat voters are people who are reliant on these systems. Note what word I used there, I didn't say "benefit from" I said "Reliant" as in this is the lifevest keeping these people from drowning. Obviously the Democrats don't want you to create an environment where people won't be reliant on these systems. If anything, they'll push for things that bring more people into reliance on Welfare because people who need welfare, likely are going to vote for people who will expand welfare.

Also the other reason Trump is popular with the Middle Class is because the Democrats make anyone who actually works for a wage feel terribly about wanting to keep more of what THEY EARNED FOR THEMSELVES. Oh, you want slightly reduced taxes so you can have a livable wage? Well you're inconsiderate of all the immigrants and unemployed people dependent on your tax dollars to fund their healthcare. Even though you can't fund your own healthcare, we're still forcing you to pay for theirs.

Yep!

I am fortunately one of those folks who pay a god awful amount of taxes and it pisses me off to no end that there is someone who says "No you should pay more because you did well in life." Fuck You.

[Torrasque]

Less people would be on Welfare too if we actually bothered to make an environment for them where they have a chance to succeed. Welfare is the equivalent to throwing money on a fire and hoping you throw enough, fast enough to smother the flame. We've all heard the old line: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Welfare falls into this exact same category. This is why Trump is so popular with the Middle Class, because they actually work for their money and Trump is pushing in a direction that would allow them to enjoy more fruit of their labor. This is also why the Left vehemently hates him because less taxes means less votes they basically buy through keeping people reliant on Welfare.

The only issue is a majority of Democrat voters are people who are reliant on these systems. Note what word I used there, I didn't say "benefit from" I said "Reliant" as in this is the lifevest keeping these people from drowning. Obviously the Democrats don't want you to create an environment where people won't be reliant on these systems. If anything, they'll push for things that bring more people into reliance on Welfare because people who need welfare, likely are going to vote for people who will expand welfare.

Also the other reason Trump is popular with the Middle Class is because the Democrats make anyone who actually works for a wage feel terribly about wanting to keep more of what THEY EARNED FOR THEMSELVES. Oh, you want slightly reduced taxes so you can have a livable wage? Well you're inconsiderate of all the immigrants and unemployed people dependent on your tax dollars to fund their healthcare. Even though you can't fund your own healthcare, we're still forcing you to pay for theirs.

Well, nearly all of these point are completely different than my understanding of the notion. Do you have any facts relating to your opinion?

[Thage]

Well, nearly all of these point are completely different than my understanding of the notion. Do you have any facts relating to your opinion?

Vinyl thinks Trump is popular with anyone but right-wing extremists despite polls regularly sitting him at around 20% national popularity. That should tell you everything about how well-informed they are.

[Zarc]

You realize buffet and bill do tax write offs right? Anyone can if they know about it. If you read the 70s really hard enough you'll see the era of stagflation high unemployment and a general decrease of everything. That is why it looks so good untill you dig further and realize it was terrible. But sure high gas prices soviet invasions fear of nukes oil embargo I'm sure everyone can just glance over that.

I'm sure they do, what's your point? Doesn't change the fact that his tax rate is 16%. So you could tax wealthy people more, by removing the ability to do those write offs and increasing the tax rate. The biggest thing isn't the write-off, it's that most extremely wealthy people earn most of their income from capital gains, which is taxed at 20% (was 15% before 2013, thanks Obama) while the highest bracket of tax on income from labor is almost 40%. Even Bill Gates, the wealthiest guy on the planet, has argued that income from labor and capital should be taxed the same (which would pretty much double how much the wealthiest people pay), just as Warren Buffet has argued that his tax rate should be higher than that of his secretary.

[Torrasque]

Yep!

I am fortunately one of those folks who pay a god awful amount of taxes and it pisses me off to no end that there is someone who says "No you should pay more because you did well in life." Fuck You.

I don't mind paying much more in taxes, so long as the taxes are used efficiently, not because a corporation simply doesn't want to pay their workers. Improving step up systems and welfare rewards is something that I am very much for, but I don't like that corporations are abusing welfare aid to pay lower wages, making a profit from welfare, and those that pay taxes for it.

[Citizen T]

and that is fine, but if you calculate in the fact that when you raise to the 15 you will also impact 40% of the people in the household income number, thus increasing it so you will end up around 35% in the end.

factor in productivity gains vs back in the 30's vs now and factors not included in inflation you easily get more for your 35% then you were getting for your 30%

30% was sufficient and fair back then but not so sure now.

I understand the math you're trying to explain, but you are still trying to make the comparison to something different. You are trying to dynamically score the ratio for the change but using a static ratio of the past.

30% is still sufficient. Back then a minimum wage couldn't (and wasn't meant to) to provide a living (or livable) wage. If you make minimum wage and want then you have to make concessions such as living with a spouse/partner/roommate that also works. A full time minimum wage earner is above the federal poverty level - two minimum wage earners combined should be sufficient for a livable wage.