Malik
Superstar
Let big chains destroy small businesses and replace livable wage jobs with minimum wage jobs then criticize everyone for not trying hard enough brehs
Bill Maher on minimum wage
- Thread starter Remote
- Start date
Yeah, I don't think people really want to admit that regardless of educational levels, SOMEBODY is going to be working at McD's and/or mopping floors.
I don't see what's so terrible about paying them humane wages - nobody is suggesting that they should make $20/hr or something. The minimum wage in 1968, when converted to today's dollars, was around $10.50/hr. And believe it or not, it didn't collapse the economy. On the contrary, unemployment was relatively low compared to now.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
These are the cats you're arguing with.
"living wage" isnt a real wage... its impossible to do.
My question is why p*ssyfoot around? why not make min wage $50/hr?
The red isnt true.
But ultimately this is what happens when you make a degree attainable by everyone
Those that choose not to get the degrees that are practically being given away at this point, they are fukked
Its simple supply and demand economics, that liberals continue to misconstrue...
Stage 1 thinking at its finest. Mom and pop stores pass those alleged "higher wages" on to their costumers with higher priced goods.There is no way to cheat cost, I repeat, there is no way to cheat cost. Its going to get paid at some point, and its not gonna be by the owner...
question: Do you think the mom and pop store charging higher prices and employing 5-6 people, does more community good than wal-mart
Capitalism itself is a system built on economic mobility.
liberals promote policies that destroy the economic ladder than point and say "look the ladder is gone we need more progressive policies to compensate".
liberals promote policies that destroy the economic ladder than point and say "look the ladder is gone we need more progressive policies to compensate".
Not to mention, I believe the top marginal tax rate back then was like 70%-80%. But tell it now, and people will accuse you of being a socialist.
If you believe the rich were actually paying this rate, you have drunk too much liberal kool-aid.
LebronsHairline
AKA Chief Green Leaf
NZA
LOL
"tell employees to get on welfare...then do everything you can to avoid paying taxes and stigmatize welfare"_the benevolent rich
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
Capitalism itself is a system built on economic mobility.
liberals promote policies that destroy the economic ladder than point and say "look the ladder is gone we need more progressive policies to compensate".
Is this reflected in upward economic mobility statistics versus socialist countries?
Is this reflected in upward economic mobility statistics versus socialist countries?
We are talking about Merica here and only Merica... so why would what works in Singapore, Hong Kong, or Sri Lanka be relevant at all?But since you insist...
Minority economic mobility in those socialist nations is even worse than here in the U.S. Racial diversity(here in Merica) makes side by side comparisons near impossible
When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR(Effective Marginal Tax Rate) would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million+. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.
As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944.
None of that really matters tho...
The fact you guys honestly believe people were going into business and only keeping 10cents of every dollar made, then paying employees and bills, and then still turning a profit means there is little we are going to agree or find middle ground on.
Its quite frankly crazy talk.
LebronsHairline
AKA Chief Green Leaf
None of that really matters tho...
The fact you guys honestly believe people were going into business and only keeping 10cents of every dollar made, then paying employees and bills, and then still turning a profit means there is little we are going to agree or find middle ground on.
Its quite frankly crazy talk.
Except i didnt say shyt but simply asked you to prove what you were stating so don't put words in my mouth. I'd prefer you to put up a link rather than give me second hand info if you had it
My bad. So many bleeding heart liberals spewing emotionally charged piss gumbo, I stopped payin attention.
I am anti link posting, its a long story.Lets just say I find the whole googling supporting arguments thing lame and prefer people scrutinize my info on their own, using there own sources/methods.
Who thinks that? We all realize there have been/currently are loopholes so that the richest Americans aren't necessarily paying as much as they might otherwise be forced to play. If anything, I'd wager that it's people on the right with the impression that they're paying the gov't half their paycheck to support people on welfare. I have very little patience for this type of hyperbole ... and its rampant in HL.