Angery people.

Ovid_and_Flem said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

With regard to a reasonable minimum wage I hear you. But under our corporate capitalist system corporations have a duty to their shareholders to be as profitable as possible. As such they're going to quite often seek out the cheapest available labor. And people will take those jobs.

My brother runs a small Veterinary Clinic as a sole proprietor in a small southern town. He employs three full-time people 2 of whom are Young single mothers.  There is no shortage of young people who enjoy working in a Veterinary Clinic. He could easily slide by paying close to the minimum wage and have competent employees. But he feels a personal obligation to his employees where they make a living wage. He wants his employees to not have to worry about making ends meet on 8 or $10 an hour. He chooses to pay employees at least $20 an hour.. He has luxury to treat is employees well. . He could easily be personally making $60,000 a year more for himself if he were to pay what the market will bear. He further rationalizes it that they will at least have some discretionary income to spend in the community ultimately benefiting him if those business owners are generating income to use his services. Suffice to say there's a waiting list of people who want to work for him. He probably Nets $120,000 a year. Which he feels is plenty for him to live on even though he could easily cut wages and bump his personal income close to $200,000 a year. Corporate America can't and won't do that.

Agree 100%. Outside of increasing the minimum wage (to stop subsidizing the mega marts and their shareholders) I would love to see the tax code incentivize employee owned companies. Something like S-Corp legislation where if employees owned x% of the company they would get better rates/more deductions/tax credits. It would obviously incentivize employees to have skin in the game, increased comp if they are productive and then decisions would be made with employees in mind. Not just shareholders.

frenchyd said:

Enyar said:

Duke said:

Enyar said:

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Ovid_and_Flem :

They pay 2% 

That hasn’t ever happened before has it?  So this is fresh new income. 2% 

that hasn’t happened before 2%. 

That hasnt happened before. 2%. 

That hasnt happened before. 

And so on and so on. 

People will pay 2 cents on the dollar because it’s trivial  and the punishment for not paying it is severe

This is called Value Added Tax and it has been around for maybe 100 years. It’s really really super not a good idea. If you’re taxing every transaction that makes up a car at 2%, you just raised the price of that car by at least 100%.

Not quite a VAT tax.  It's similar to a sales tax but it shifts the burden from the end user to everyone along the supply chain. It lets governments collect as the process moves along and prevents people from avoiding sales taxes if the product gets exported. 

How on earth does it shift the burden from the end user to the everyone on the supply chain?  Because you know, I know, and undiscovered tribes in the blackest depths of the Amazon jungle know that each step is just going to increase their prices as required to offset the tax.  Which all flows downhill to the consumer.  ALL taxes are eventually paid by the consumer.  Always.

Absolutely, and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. The difference is where and when the tax is collected.  The most notable difference is where the consumer comes into play. In a VAT system, if the end user is out of the country the local government is still getting their share. In a sales tax situation GM could build a car in the US, sell it in Mexico and the end user will not pay sales tax.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. The person doing the selling collects the tax. He has a line for the deposit and a line for the tax on his deposit slip. GM sells a truck to Mexico? They collect the tax. Boeing sells a jet? Ditto.  Stuff coming into the country we collect the tax on import duty!  

Record keeping amounts to keeping your deposit slips. OK electronic ledger. 

Oh and so what if costs go up! Taxes went down to offset it!  I didn’t say we’d eliminate taxes. It still costs money to run a government.  I’m simply changing the way taxes are paid. Trying to make those who buy the most pay the most. 

Not with a VAT tax system which is what we are talking about. Trust me, I fill out VAT returns for a living.

frenchyd said:

1 the economy fluctuates now, and we adjust. I’m not saying this will make life perfect and rosy  just an easier less divisive way to collect taxes . 

2. The tax code is the absolute last place to correct and reward behavior or values.  

3.  The rich pay their share of taxes?  Have you checked their  tax returns?  No the rich pay the absolute minimum they can within the rules. Fairness doesn’t have any place on the income tax form.  

Warren Buffet points  out that he pays a lower percentage of his income tax than his secretary does. If he choose to he could legally avoid paying any taxes at all.  And that isn’t even one of those super secret tax breaks called legal precedent. 

4. No, paying the most in a straight tax system isn’t progressive.  You only pay a lot if you make a lot.  Like I’ve said the myth of a progressive system hasn’t helped the poor or working poor.  

The way I dealt with the working poor is eliminated income tax bellow $50,000 a year  and a flat tax starting at $50,000. 

Here’s how it works. Let’s say we need to collect 10% income tax.  Once you earn more than $50,000 you pay 10% so your tax bill at $51,000 is $100

at $100,000 you owe $5000.  

Now if $50,000 isn’t the number a person can make, have a home, family, and the essentials please make your case.  Yes you will be paying 2% sales tax on things. But that tax burden is offset by the much higher minimum wage.  That’s only $24.00 an hour. 

Shouldn’t work provide you with the essential cost of living? Does the tax payer really have to subsidize business by allowing business to pay less than a living wage?  

To those who claim a higher minimum wage will cost jobs please explain why. There isn’t a businessman in the country who hires people just because they are cheaper.   If your Baker works for less than minimum wage will customers buy more?  

 

1.You can't just adjust the tax code everytime the economy changes. That's how you get corporations/people to stop investing, when they can't readily forecast the future. The strength of america, the dollar, treasury bonds are because they are stable and reliable. If a company's tax is going to fluctuate wildly from one year to the other it's going to create too much volatility. 

2.Where do you suggest we reward/incentivize behaviour then? Have you heard of sin taxes? Those seem to work extremely well.

3. Yeah, actually I do. I prepare taxes for a living and I've seen some sizeable returns on my desk (think George Soros). I get the argument that Buffet's secretary pays a lower percentage than Buffett. But when you look at the total tax and you see Buffet cutting a check for MILLIONs of dollars I don't buy the arguement that they pay less. Should they pay more total tax than poor folks, absolutely that's the only way the system will work. But its a tough argument that the millionaire next door uses 100000x the resources than Johnny 6pack with his 6 children, over leveraged house and his cash business.

4. So is there no sales tax if you make under 50k? I guess we will just have to disagree with this one (also you never mentioned that you were tripling the min wage in your original plan)

Agreed on the minimum wage but there are absolutely businessmen who hires people because they are cheaper. Unskilled labor doesn't bring much to the bargaining table.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

What are you suggesting? Fire the government?  Are you suggesting anarchy?  

Maybe you think all one party should go to one part of the country and the other party should go to the other part?  

I’m sorry  America is stronger United. Stronger still if both sides would stop listening to those who want us divided and remember what we all share in common,  accept compromise not as failure but something that moves us ahead. 

Realize that statesmanship is the art of what’s possible and something to be admired.  

Stop vilifying those with different priorities and recognize they have the same rights you do to their opinions. 

We get a chance every two years to overthrow the government and if your side doesn’t win everything  you still got a chance to have your say. Make the compromises you need to in order to convince others. 

You should know this more than just about anyone here. The government has grown many times over, far exceeding it's mandate, on your watch. These changes happened in the last 60 years. Most of the departments, programs, and budget (adjusted for inflation) did not exist 60 years ago. It grew because people like you used false logic to push the boundaries and use the slightest excuse to grow. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume for sake of argument that every program was created with good intentions. Even so, rarely did anyone ask, "Is this worth it?" Or "Can we afford this?" No, the argument was that it will help someone, somewhere, so it must be done, never mind the expense. To do otherwise is heartless and cruel.

The cruel fact is that many of these programs are so inefficient, we would be far better off scrapping the programs and giving the money straight to recipients. But the fact of the matter is, our government, often with the people's approval, has been slowly stripping our rights and selling them back to us. Think of that the next time you pay for a "permit."

I can't believe you have the Audacity to ask why we are divided. Many of your posts drip with divisive talk and calls to strip wealth from others. Lots of talk about how others shouldn't have what they have, and how they don't deserve it. How about you do your part? Sell your $Million dollar home, move into a more modest home. You don't want to ruin you children by leaving them an inheritance, so why not donate it? Better yet, write it in on your tax form since you are so confident in the government's ability to redistribute it. 

I think everyone agrees they would like to see a government that is more efficient, however it's basically never been done before so I think for current arguements we should stick with what levers we can currently manipulate. Taxes, interest rates, social programs etc. Would be a great long term goal though.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Let’s correct a few errors here. Nearly everyone pays taxes!  A wino pays taxes on the jug of wine. The cash only guy pays it when he buys fuel for his truck. The little old lady on social security buying a package of Sox’s at Walmart pays import duty. 

The guy in prison pays it on the razor he’s gonna melt into a shiv. ( most cheap disposables are imported) that or the flip flops he’s wearing. 

You know very well that I was talking about the bulk of the taxes that many people do not pay- income tax and property tax. Of course people pay sales taxes, fees, etc,. But since we are picking nits, in many of your examples those people are receiving far more financial support than they pay in taxes, so I think It's fair to say that their net tax contribution is zero and leave it at that. If you really want to push it, I can show that their net contribution is far less than zero, but that is a whole different discussion, and I only reference it because you brought it up. In fact, a fair portion of the non wino or inmate population do work and pay taxes, but get "refunds" that are greater than what they originally paid. 

You inadvertently illustrated my point- we as a people pay a lot of taxes. Follow a dollar through our economy and you would be shocked how many times it's taxed. 

Lets talk just about that sales tax that you mentioned. It varies from state to state and city to city, but I'll use an example from where I live, in California. Sales tax averages around 9%. The state and local government gets a 9% cut of most business that goes on. That's straight off the top, not counting all of the other taxes and fees and permits. Very few business net anything near 9%, despite that they do all of the work and assume the risk. Yet they usually are able to operate and grow, despite being shaken down for more than they make in profits. The government gets that from almost everyone, and it's no where near enough for them. Something isn't right in that picture. 

Agreed but for this discussion I think we should keep the focus on Federal taxes as it's what we all have in common. Sales tax, property tax, use tax, tariffs, licenses etc are going to vary wildly by region and it should be a separate discussion.

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I blame the complete lack of financial education and terrible spending habits of most Americans for the fact that they can't get $1000 in an emergency.

Those same uneducated people with poor spending habits will still struggle to get that money in an emergency if the minimum wage increases. Only after the wage increase, the stuff they'll need to buy will be more expensive, so they'll need more than $1000 now. It will be $1100-$1200 or more.

That brings us back to the start of this thread. The problem is not so much the circumstance, it's the behavior of those affected by it.

But what's the cause of that lack of education? Are some people just dumb and helpless? Or did those people get parked in front of a TV as a kid because their parents were working 3 jobs to get by. Or they were in a crap school system which surrounded them with more people just like them. Or they lacked opportunies to get meaningful work that made them better people.  If someone has the opportunities to be successful but decides to pass because they would rather be high then I agree **** em

My issue is there are a ton of people out there that aren't getting those opportunities. Keep dumbing down the lower classes and it's only a matter of time until they revolt and bring the whole party down.

Sorry for the post whoring. This is just a fascinating topic for me and I honestly believe we can tax ourselves into a system that benefits everyone.

Enyar said:

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I blame the complete lack of financial education and terrible spending habits of most Americans for the fact that they can't get $1000 in an emergency.

Those same uneducated people with poor spending habits will still struggle to get that money in an emergency if the minimum wage increases. Only after the wage increase, the stuff they'll need to buy will be more expensive, so they'll need more than $1000 now. It will be $1100-$1200 or more.

That brings us back to the start of this thread. The problem is not so much the circumstance, it's the behavior of those affected by it.

But what's the cause of that lack of education? Are some people just dumb and helpless? Or did those people get parked in front of a TV as a kid because their parents were working 3 jobs to get by. Or they were in a crap school system which surrounded them with more people just like them. Or they lacked opportunies to get meaningful work that made them better people.  If someone has the opportunities to be successful but decides to pass because they would rather be high then I agree **** em

 

My issue is there are a ton of people out there that aren't getting those opportunities. Keep dumbing down the lower classes and it's only a matter of time until they revolt and bring the whole party down.

My focus would begin with the younger generation. Our schools fail to teach any kind of personal finance, so I'd start there. Otherwise, it falls to parents to teach their kids, and struggling parents can't teach their kids what they don't know themselves. It's why generational poverty is what it is. The best place/time to educate people and stop the cycle is when they're young. The wealthy teach their kids differently than poor people, but these concepts can be taught by anyone. It doesn't have to come from a parent.

There also seems to be some correlation between success and self control, delayed gratification, grit, etc. I linked the marshmallow test earlier in this thread as an example, but there are others too. The more disadvantaged a person is, the more self control and discipline they'll have to have to succeed. Engraining these traits into kids will only help them long term.

Boost_Crazy said:

I've seen a lot of discussion about taxes, much about raising them. Can anyone tell me why we need to raise them? Why the government needs more money? Where is the discussion about spending to go along with it? The elephant in the room is that pretty much every program at every level of government is poorly run, manages it's budget poorly, produces poor results, or any or all of the above. And it seems like the worse they do, the more money we give them, without a return for our investment. And by our, I mean the 51% that still pay taxes. Good luck to us all when that number drops to 49% and the non tax paying majority vote the tax payers into oblivion. 

My plan- fix the spending first. Any department head that can't run within their budget gets replaced. Cut redundant programs. Cut programs that fail to deliver the promised results. Then fix the taxes. Maybe a flat consumption tax. The crazy complex tax code gives more power to the government who can pick the winners and losers, and more power to those who can afford to influence the code ($$$) so that they are one of the winners. Strip the code, and you strip the power. The flat tax would also ensure that everyone has some skin in the game. 

Sorry, I didn’t look into this over the weekend.  Yes, I can give a really good answer to why we need more tax revenue.  Back in the 90’s we had a balanced budget.  That means that while as a Nation we had debt, what we were taking in was equal to or greater than what we were spending.  That was true despite the fact that for the last 50 years both parties have seen the social security fund as an ATM.  What we should have done was as the economy improved was pay back the money borrowed.  That way we could keep providing for people as we have promised. 

Instead, we undertook a series of tax cuts based a) on spurious future predictions that b) were supposed to expire but not only didn’t, we created more tax cuts and c) deliberately ignored a now 17 year old war in the already spurious calculations.  So now, we’re in the position where we have more and growing debt and are having too limit what we promised our citizens for retirement as well as increasing the age at which we are eligible to receive it.  It should also be mandated that wars be paid for with increased taxes that expire automatically X months or years after the conflict is over. 

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

Yep.  Yes - we need to find ways to reduce govt spending, but at the same time we are so far behind that if we don't start paying off some of the debt the consequences could be dire.  Last fiscal year we paid over $458.5 Billion on debt interest and we're on track to pay more this year.  Just the interest - not counting the actual amounts borrowed.

In reply to Ian F :

You are absolutely right.  The massive tax cut will  even increase that.  

Now is the time to change the game. Vote for my tax reform!!!

Adrian_Thompson said:

Boost_Crazy said:

I've seen a lot of discussion about taxes, much about raising them. Can anyone tell me why we need to raise them? Why the government needs more money? Where is the discussion about spending to go along with it? The elephant in the room is that pretty much every program at every level of government is poorly run, manages it's budget poorly, produces poor results, or any or all of the above. And it seems like the worse they do, the more money we give them, without a return for our investment. And by our, I mean the 51% that still pay taxes. Good luck to us all when that number drops to 49% and the non tax paying majority vote the tax payers into oblivion. 

My plan- fix the spending first. Any department head that can't run within their budget gets replaced. Cut redundant programs. Cut programs that fail to deliver the promised results. Then fix the taxes. Maybe a flat consumption tax. The crazy complex tax code gives more power to the government who can pick the winners and losers, and more power to those who can afford to influence the code ($$$) so that they are one of the winners. Strip the code, and you strip the power. The flat tax would also ensure that everyone has some skin in the game. 

Sorry, I didn’t look into this over the weekend.  Yes, I can give a really good answer to why we need more tax revenue.  Back in the 90’s we had a balanced budget.  That means that while as a Nation we had debt, what we were taking in was equal to or greater than what we were spending.  That was true despite the fact that for the last 50 years both parties have seen the social security fund as an ATM.  What we should have done was as the economy improved was pay back the money borrowed.  That way we could keep providing for people as we have promised. 

Instead, we undertook a series of tax cuts based a) on spurious future predictions that b) were supposed to expire but not only didn’t, we created more tax cuts and c) deliberately ignored a now 17 year old war in the already spurious calculations.  So now, we’re in the position where we have more and growing debt and are having too limit what we promised our citizens for retirement as well as increasing the age at which we are eligible to receive it.  It should also be mandated that wars be paid for with increased taxes that expire automatically X months or years after the conflict is over. 

Well said  except you missed one very critical point.  This nation has never paid for it’s wars with taxes.  We have always inflated our way out of debt.  

 That’s not too bad a solution.  Pay raises go with inflation. But house payments car payments heck any debt is fixed. So those payments get easier. 

Social security is tied to inflation  so old geezers like me are protected. 

In fact the only one who is really hurt is the guy who keeps his cash  under the mattress. Frankly  he’s the kind of guy who won’t be able to figure out what inflation is but’s really mad that food is costing so much.  

frenchyd wrote:

“If you want to reduce welfare cheats spend a lot of money to catch them.”

I do appreciate your point about how it can cost more to prevent fraud than the fraud costs itself (I was formally exposed to this principle while studying Human Factors Engineering in graduate school.)

Alright, so let’s take a look at a real case…

One of the two blatant scammers I mentioned in my last post recently purchased a brand new Dodge quad-cab turbo diesel pickup because he upgraded his bass boat and he didn’t think his previous pickup (2010ish Toyota Tundra gaser) had enough torque to adequately handle the increased load.

First, let’s make sure we share a common goal…

We want to reliably catch blatant cheaters at minimal cost and with minimum imposition on innocent parties.

If you’re OK with the goal, can you think of a way it could be accomplished?

Wouldn’t it cost next to nothing to run a query matching welfare recipients to DMV records of car, boat, trailer, aircraft, etc. transactions.

If we did that, we’d be all like WTF, this guy has been on welfare for years and yet he just dropped 50K+ on a hard working truck (too bad he isn’t) and a totally frivolous toy (complete with glitter paint job and chrome barefoot gas pedal)

Goal accomplished bigly wouldn’t you say?

I’ve made three to four trips per year to your fine state of Minnesota for well over a decade now…Minnesota people are far more knowledgeable and are far more receptive to considering the possibilities than California people.

Despite your obvious intellect, I really don’t think you get just how F’ed up it is out here frenchyd.

In reply to RX Reven' :

I agree with what you're saying but the argument against is: 'you can't legislate what else they can own'...'maybe it was given to them', etc. ... all perfectly reasonable.

Just another loophole to jump through really...sort of like the tax discussion. There is no -one- thing that's going to work, and it's always going to be necessary to tweak and change things as problems and loopholes are found. Everything put forth so far is easily gamed, IMO.

I used to be "against" a lot of social programs because of fraud and abuse...but now I'm a  "meh".  Eventually that money will buy someone a sandwich and be put back in the system.  (I count my blessings, work hard, and play by the rules to my benefit).

Enyar said:

frenchyd said:

1 the economy fluctuates now, and we adjust. I’m not saying this will make life perfect and rosy  just an easier less divisive way to collect ltaxes . 

2. The tax code is the absolute last place to correct and reward behavior or values.  

3.  The rich pay their share of taxes?  Have you checked their  tax returns?  No the rich pay the absolute minimum they can within the rules. Fairness doesn’t have any place on the income tax form.  

Warren Buffet points  out that he pays a lower percentage of his income tax than his secretary does. If he choose to he could legally avoid paying any taxes at all.  And that isn’t even one of those super secret tax breaks called legal precedent. 

4. No, paying the most in a straight tax system isn’t progressive.  You only pay a lot if you make a lot.  Like I’ve said the myth of a progressive system hasn’t helped the poor or working poor.  

The way I dealt with the working poor is eliminated income tax bellow $50,000 a year  and a flat tax starting at $50,000. 

Here’s how it works. Let’s say we need to collect 10% income tax.  Once you earn more than $50,000 you pay 10% so your tax bill at $51,000 is $100

at $100,000 you owe $5000.  

Now if $50,000 isn’t the number a person can make, have a home, family, and the essentials please make your case.  Yes you will be paying 2% sales tax on things. But that tax burden is offset by the much higher minimum wage.  That’s only $24.00 an hour. 

Shouldn’t work provide you with the essential cost of living? Does the tax payer really have to subsidize business by allowing business to pay less than a living wage?  

To those who claim a higher minimum wage will cost jobs please explain why. There isn’t a businessman in the country who hires people just because they are cheaper.   If your Baker works for less than minimum wage will customers buy more?  

 

1.You can't just adjust the tax code everytime the economy changes. That's how you get corporations/people to stop investing, when they can't readily forecast the future. The strength of america, the dollar, treasury bonds are because they are stable and reliable. If a company's tax is going to fluctuate wildly from one year to the other it's going to create too much volatility. 

 

2.Where do you suggest we reward/incentivize behaviour then? Have you heard of sin taxes? Those seem to work extremely well.

3. Yeah, actually I do. I prepare taxes for a living and I've seen some sizeable returns on my desk (think George Soros). I get the argument that Buffet's secretary pays a lower percentage than Buffett. But when you look at the total tax and you see Buffet cutting a check for MILLIONs of dollars I don't buy the arguement that they pay less. Should they pay more total tax than poor folks, absolutely that's the only way the system will work. But its a tough argument that the millionaire next door uses 100000x the resources than Johnny 6pack with his 6 children, over leveraged house and his cash business.

4. So is there no sales tax if you make under 50k? I guess we will just have to disagree with this one (also you never mentioned that you were tripling the min wage in your original plan)

 

WAgreed on the minimum wage but there are absolutely businessmen who hires people because they are cheaper. Unskilled labor doesn't bring much to the bargaining table.

1.

Do you honestly think the latest tax cut is fair?  Or prudent?  

Nearly everybody agreed that corporate taxes needed to meet world markets.  But properly dealing with taxes doesn’t mean you slide it to the working class and make things more unequal. 

Tax code needs to be fair and simple. 

2. 

Sin tax shouldn’t have any place in taxes. It assumes things that haven’t been put to the people.  

Tax code  should be about taxes 

3. 

Let’s not parse words.  Someone who makes 100 million dollars will need to pay more taxes than someone who makes $100,000 

it should be simple. You want something here’s the price that includes the 2% tax.  

4. 

The $50,000 cap was just a little nod to a progressive tax 

as far as the minimum wage? Why shouldn’t  they get a tiny bit of what the top 1% got in the past 40 years?  Don’t you believe in trickle down?  ( grin) 

RX Reven' said:

frenchyd wrote:

“If you want to reduce welfare cheats spend a lot of money to catch them.”

I do appreciate your point about how it can cost more to prevent fraud than the fraud costs itself (I was formally exposed to this principle while studying Human Factors Engineering in graduate school.)

Alright, so let’s take a look at a real case…

One of the two blatant scammers I mentioned in my last post recently purchased a brand new Dodge quad-cab turbo diesel pickup because he upgraded his bass boat and he didn’t think his previous pickup (2010ish Toyota Tundra gaser) had enough torque to adequately handle the increased load.

First, let’s make sure we share a common goal…

We want to reliably catch blatant cheaters at minimal cost and with minimum imposition on innocent parties.

If you’re OK with the goal, can you think of a way it could be accomplished?

Wouldn’t it cost next to nothing to run a query matching welfare recipients to DMV records of car, boat, trailer, aircraft, etc. transactions.

If we did that, we’d be all like WTF, this guy has been on welfare for years and yet he just dropped 50K+ on a hard working truck (too bad he isn’t) and a totally frivolous toy (complete with glitter paint job and chrome barefoot gas pedal)

Goal accomplished bigly wouldn’t you say?

I’ve made three to four trips per year to your fine state of Minnesota for well over a decade now…Minnesota people are far more knowledgeable and are far more receptive to considering the possibilities than California people.

Despite your obvious intellect, I really don’t think you get just how F’ed up it is out here frenchyd.

I spent 7 years in San Diego. My closest friend still lives there and I regularly  go there.  

With regard your scammers it should be extremely easy to report it.  Fully 1/3 of fraud acted on is reported by a third party.  If he is scamming figure out how and turn him/ her? In. It’s your duty 

All it takes is for good men to do nothing for evil to triumph. 

Hi frenchyd,

I’d prefer a systematic and quantifiable approach to combating fraud over your recommendation to rely on a random patchwork of amateur snitches but alright, you’re entitled to your opinion.

Added later…

The specific person I mentioned got kicked out of the army for beating up his CO, proudly displays a gun safe in his entry, and is so huge that my poor 1983 RX-7’s rear suspension spent much of its time bottomed out when I once gave him a ride in it.

Anyway, I thought I’d share the backstory so you’d understand why I was a little saucy in my post...ratting him out isn’t a realistic option due to the basic instinct for self-preservation.

In reply to RX Reven' :

The trouble with systematic and quantifiable blah blah blah!! Takes forever. A report causes excellent and quick results. 

As to this guy, I understand how you feel. He sounds horrible, however I hope  your animosity towards him is not shading things to the point where you’d unjustly accuse him of things.  

I’m sure not.  

You do know that privacy laws protect a whistle blower don’t you?  If I report you to the police and the police say who reported you I can sue the police. Bottom line the police or anyone working for the government won’t revel the source 

1.You can't just adjust the tax code everytime the economy changes. That's how you get corporations/people to stop investing, when they can't readily forecast the future. The strength of america, the dollar, treasury bonds are because they are stable and reliable. If a company's tax is going to fluctuate wildly from one year to the other it's going to create too much volatility. 

Seems to work for F1.  Actually I don't know.  I stopped watching a long time ago. Seemed asinine to punish Williams for success just as McLaren seemed to be catching up. 

I'd like to chime in on minimum wage. 

I believe that the argument that minimum wage should be a living wage is completely out of touch with the real world. It should not be expected that minimum wage could support an individual, let alone a family. 

Minimum wage is a training wage for people with no skills to offer. It's for kids summer jobs or part time jobs while in school. Or for a retired person to pass time and earn a bit of supplemental income. An adult cannot support themselves, much less a family. That is not a tragedy, that is how it is designed. If as an able bodied adult, you have not acquired work skills or experience to move beyond minimum wage, you need to work multiple jobs until you acquire such skills. It may suck for a bit, but it's the consequence of not finishing school, not working hard, or simply bring an shiny happy person that can't keep a job due to their attitude. 

If one with skills or experience can't get a job due to no jobs available, they need to move where the jobs are. It's kept people from starving throughout human existence. You need to follow the herd. 

I argue that raising the minimum wage does more harm to the people that it trying to help than good. Remember those teenagers that used to work the minimum wage jobs? Those training jobs where they could learn how not to screw up before it did any real harm. They were better prepared when they got their "real" jobs later. Minimum wage goes up, and now it's tougher to hire a kid with limited availability where you need to work around their school schedule. How about that guy trying to turn it about with the questionable work history. Maybe worth the gamble, but not at a higher wage. Definitely not this day and age where it takes an act of congress to fire an employee that doesn't work out. Safer to not hire them in the first place. 

Raising wages also raises prices. It becomes an exercise in chasing ones tail. 

The final blow to unskilled workers is automation. Self check outs and order taking kiosks are replacing workers. It's math, the cheaper automation gets and the more expensive unskilled labor gets, the more jobs will be cut. And minimum wage jobs are very important! Not to support families, but as an educational tool to new workforce participants. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Both Sowell and Williams have pointed out how minimum wage laws adversely impact minority youth that don't have the connections/systemic advantages of so-called WASPs by pricing them out of the job markets lower rungs.  

In reply to Boost_Crazy : first raising wages raises prices?  

Great!!!! Yes, I love it! So should you!  

Do you have a mortgage?  Do you make payments on a car? Or have other debt?   Well those are fixed.   

Debt is fixed income raises means paying off debt is easier!!!  

A little discipline and you can ride the inflation elevator.  

I paid $27,800 for my first home.  9 years later I sold it for $100,000 !  

I then bought this house for $107,000  similar sized houses in my neighborhood are selling in the millions.  

Inflation is a good thing  those on inflation get inflation adjusted increases.  Investments based on assets automatically increase with inflation . 

The only ones who lose are those who store  cash under the mattress. 

In reply to frenchyd :

But that inflated asset only benefits you if you sell it or borrow against it. My debt is "fixed", as long as I am in a position to not have to borrow more to survive, but the interest on it is not.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Why should any business hire people because they are cheap? Does the CEO work the cheapest? Is the salesman who works cheap the best salesman? I’ll work for $6.00 an hour if you allow me to come in whenever I feel like and pay cash at the end of my work period. ( which I’ll decide)  

 Day old bread is half price and I’m sure you can get a good price on produce that’s a little wilted.  

Cheap gets you cheap.  

Henry Ford found out when he raised wages to $5 a day he had his choice of the best workers in the country.  

Let’s be honest the lowest cost employee is the one who isn’t there.  

No company will hire someone just because he’s cheap. 

If wages at the bottom go up so do all wages!  Rising tide floats all boats. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Why should any business hire people because they are cheap? Does the CEO work the cheapest? Is the salesman who works cheap the best salesman? I’ll work for $6.00 an hour if you allow me to come in whenever I feel like and pay cash at the end of my work period. ( which I’ll decide)  

 Day old bread is half price and I’m sure you can get a good price on produce that’s a little wilted.  

Cheap gets you cheap.  

Henry Ford found out when he raised wages to $5 a day he had his choice of the best workers in the country.  

Let’s be honest the lowest cost employee is the one who isn’t there.  

No company will hire someone just because he’s cheap. 

If wages at the bottom go up so do all wages!  Rising tide floats all boats. 

The CEO presumably has skills and knowledge that minimum wage earners don't. I'm not saying that to justify the exorbitant salaries of most CEOs, but minimum wage jobs exist as an entry point into the job market for a reason: They require little or no special skills. They're there to allow people to learn how to be employable and obtain skills that will let them get a higher paying job. They're not there to be used to support families.

Employers have already adopted a trend of hiring more low-wage earners and reducing their overall hours so that they don't have to be provided expensive benefits. Would increasing minimum wage do anything but expedite that trend even further? Would you rather have a $2/hr  raise only to have your hours cut and lose benefits? As automation increases, many of these low level jobs are likely to be replaced by machines/kiosks/etc anyway. Making retailers pay their low level workers more only incentivizes the change over to automation.

Also, while there is a ripple effect after increasing minimum wage, there is no noticeable benefit for anyone above the 25th percentile in income. So it doesn't really benefit as many people as you seem to hope that it would. If you're wondering what the 25th percentile of income is, it's about $20,000. 

As businesses raise prices in response to a minimum wage increase It does raise costs and taxes for everyone though, so helping the lowest income earners comes at a cost for middle class families and their buying power. And again, are those minimum wage earners likely to use their increased wages to advance their lives, or will it just get spent on more cigarettes, lotto tickets, and Mountain Dew?