No, because that would be as much about fairness and helping the people on top (if not moreso) as it would the bottom.

I would say that guy is correct in being against overtaxation.

The only way trickle down works is if the "elite" actually re-invest in the corporation instead of pocketing the extra cash.

In this era of million dollar golden parachutes and bonuses, does anyone think that'll actually happen?

Maybe they'll lower the cost to attend the company picnic from $50 to $40!

_________________

Well, it is nearly time for me to clock off for the weekend and go get a couple beverages on the way home. I guess we just are not going to be able to solve the US economic problem this afternoon.

It is good to see that no one changed their mind at all and we are all still securely safe in our political bunkers. Bunkers built largely by the political direction we received from our parents in most cases. The two party system of us versus them is strongly thriving. (Maybe Dark side in the headphones later?)

Anyway, enjoy all and come back to class Monday ready to work. Try to read something opposite of what you believe.

Peace and Love.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Look, if we as a society want people to have enough money to live on then it is society as a whole to ensure that. It is not Pizza Hut's responsibility to make sure JUAN has enough to live on. If it costs Pizza Hut $700/week to hire Juan and it results in a $200 reduction in profits, why in the hell would they hire him?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

You're clueless. The deduction regime under that system was entirely different, the effective tax rates never approached the above figures because the tax base was so much more narrow.

Hysterical.

Have a drunk weekend mike!

_________________

No. That's one reason why trickle down is flawed. It presumes reinvestment of profits.


The goal should be to make the playing field as level as possible so everyone has the chance to earn a better life.

That wouldn't be leveling the playing field. It would just be taking points off the board.

Mike and Chas very much live in their own little world.

Ill read anything you have on trickle down economics working in the past or potentially in the future.

Have a good weekend.

You guys were mean to Mike today. Should be ashamed.

_________________

Yes, many people believe that.

To me it's like believing that grocery stores are foregoing the profits they make on having self checkout as opposed to cashiers by keeping the prices lower than they could be.

I like mike.

_________________

What?

Leveling the playing field wouldn't level the playing field?

The problem is that minimum wage workers are often already on government assistance of some kind. Some companies actually help them get their benefits from the government!

This is why my alternate solution is to not let any company with over 500(or whatever number you want to set) employees from employing someone who is on any type of government benefits. If you want to play the "Pizza Hut can't afford to pay them a livable wage!" then the government shouldn't be helping pay for it. Let them try and run their business without those workers and let the free market work itself out. This actually is the most fair to taxpayers and workers and companies. My company doesn't get to supplement my pay with checks from the government. Why should Wal-Mart?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Fake news. mike took MANY shots at me and I never returned them.


You are mike's Hannity

Ya, it's weird. This tax thing is a mess. Though, I can't really remember when this started or why.

Yup.

Arguing against higher minimum wage is effectively arguing for higher or against any lowering of taxes.


JUAN is getting his money one way or another. Either Walmart pays him, or we pay him via taxes. Many people prefer the latter for some reason.

My jar just literally hit the desk. I chipped a toof. Wal-Mart is subsidizing their income! If they can't hire poor people, we'd have to pay their entire living wage. Plus instead of theoretically doing something worthwhile (work) they'd be sitting around watching FOX news all day.

We need to be subsidizing (encouraging with money) companies to hire people not discouraging them (taxing or mandated wage levels).

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Why are your teef in a jar?

_________________

Have you people gone totally insane?? You want to pay 100% of JUAN's salary so he can sit around and feel like shit and become an opiod addict rather than subsidizing 25% of his income and letting Wal-Mart pay the other 75% and maybe JUAN gains some additional work skills.

People. COME ON NOW.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

That's false. Wal-Mart has to have those jobs filled. It's not charity. They need someone to do that work. They aren't subsidizing anything. In my case, they would have to pay them the full value after taxes of what you get from the government plus enough to make it worthwhile to work.

Are you really that "Hail Corporate!" that you think Wal-Mart hiring people at such a low rate that the government has to chip in so they can feed, clothe, and shelter themselves that Wal-Mart is the hero?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

We want Wal-Mart to pay for 100% of the costs of their workers. Why is that so hard to understand? They need to have employees. They would have to pay them enough to not be homeless and starving.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Well if that's the case, then we should probably LOWER the minimum wage. Make the new minimum 1 penny per hour and then EVERYONE can have a job!

Walmart is not employing Juan out of charity. He does provide a service for them. They are probably cut to the bone already.

Not to mention, it's not fair. Every business should get the gov't to pay half their payroll!

Wal-Mart is totally amoral. They will hire people if they are worth the cost. The higher the cost the fewer they hire. Technology is taking MANY jobs. Just visited a company in Ohio looking to consolidate their product line so they can replace a bunch of people with robots.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

That's fine. Let them cut jobs if they can. They will anyways just like you said about the company in Ohio.

Why do you hate the free market?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Every company is free to do so. If you can find someone for $8/hr that adds profit to the business go for it. This stuff is simple ECON 101. Remember the X on the paper....one line is demand, the other supply.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

If you want to go libertarian, that's fine. At least it is a coherent thought process. Mandating minimum wages is ridiculous.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

No, its the wrong application of ECON 101 that is way more common than ACTUAL Econ 101.


So wait, now JUAN adds profit? I thought they could just cut his job?

Walmart has the least amount of employees they can get away with right now. THAT is ECON 101.

They dont employ extra people that will be fired if we raise minimum wage.

If your company depends on slave lavor, your company sucks and deserves to go out of business. (paraphrasing FDR)