Blame the corporations.

[Rob's House]

 

the double negative has confused me. you're saying that the profit motivation is enough to warrant the sub living wage or you're not? either way, increasing the minimum wage may well increase the cost of goods (especially cheap goods like pink slime burgers). but those costs will be spread over the populace (perhaps even more concentrated on lower wage earners) so it amounts to a flat tax. and if less is spent on welfare because of this. taxes in general can decrease or require less of an increase. isn't that exactly what the repubs want? why the obstructionism?

Actually, it's a regressive tax.

[birdog1960]

Actually, it's a regressive tax.

touche. you are correct, sir. the pink slime tax will be paid mostly by lower income people.

[3rdnlng]

so you are arguing that the entire progressive tax system is illegal? the only legal way to tax is a flat tax? good luck with that. has as much chance of succeeding as the recent gov't shutdown to defund the aca. you can't get blood from a stone. there's too many stones without blood in the us. hence the need for a livable wage.

 

I find it hard to believe that you are really this stupid. I asked you what authority the IRS had over someone's compensation and you counter that I'm arguing against the progressive tax system that we have? I probably have never agreed with you on anything but at least there was a time a good while back that your arguments were somewhat coherent. Now they are just garbage.

[birdog1960]

I find it hard to believe that you are really this stupid. I asked you what authority the IRS had over someone's compensation and you counter that I'm arguing against the progressive tax system that we have? I probably have never agreed with you on anything but at least there was a time a good while back that your arguments were somewhat coherent. Now they are just garbage.

if it's unconstitutional for the irs to target supersized ceo pay based on the amount of compensation, it follows that it would be unconstitutional to tax anyone more based on the amount of compensation. does it not?

[IDBillzFan]

the alternative argument begins with the premise that some ratio of lowest to highest wages approaches the point of diminishing returns regarding incentives for all to work their hardest for the benefit of the corporation.

 

So shop yourself out. Find a corporation who's willing to pay you more. Maybe go back to school to get a Masters. Do SOMETHING other than believe that what you have is all you get and it's a hard knock life for the little man.

 

Most things don't just happen to people. Most people either make them happen...or let them happen.

Edited October 24, 2013 by LABillzFan

[3rdnlng]

if it's unconstitutional for the irs to target supersized ceo pay based on the amount of compensation, it follows that it would be unconstitutional to tax anyone more based on the amount of compensation. does it not?

 

The IRS doesn't set tax rates, Congress does per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to any entity to limit or set compensation levels in the private sector.

[birdog1960]

The IRS doesn't set tax rates, Congress does per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to any entity to limit or set compensation levels in the private sector.

then congress can constitutionally authorize the irs to set very high tax rates for those making over some arbitrary ratio above minimum wage, right? just as they can set arbitrary levels for progressive tax rates to kick in, right?

[DC Tom]

then congress can constitutionally authorize the irs to set very high tax rates for those making over some arbitrary ratio above minimum wage, right? just as they can set arbitrary levels for progressive tax rates to kick in, right?

 

The IRS doesn't set tax rates, Congress does.

 

And Congress already does that, anyway. That's basically the system we have.

[birdog1960]

The IRS doesn't set tax rates, Congress does.

 

And Congress already does that, anyway. That's basically the system we have.

yes, and 3rd contends it's unconstitutional.

[DC Tom]

yes, and 3rd contends it's unconstitutional.

 

No, 3rd contends that capping compensation levels is unconstitutional. That's why, when floated the idea back in 2008, they called it a "windfall tax," which was HIGHLY unconstitutional because what they were suggesting was not an ultra-high tax rate but a bill of attainder against those "making too much money" that would confiscate EVERYTHING deemed "unfairly" earned.

 

If, instead, Congress had said "everything above a certain amount of income will be taxed at 100%," that would have been legal. That also never would have passed, because it wouldn't satisfy the unwarrantedly arrogant sense of moral outrage that dumb ***** like yourself confuse with sound legislative policy (side note: this is the same confusion of moral outrage with sound policy that caused dumb ***** like you to give us the ACA.)

 

But since Congress didn't, they passed the 2012 tax law, which taxed anyone making approximately 55,000 times minimum wage at 39.6%.

 

But note...not once in all that did I mention the IRS. That's because the IRS doesn't set tax rates. Tax rates are legislated, meaning they are under the authority of the legislative branch. The IRS is part of the executive, therefore does not have authority to set tax rates. They merely enforce and collect.

 

Immigrants are required to know this to be granted citizenship. You actually know less about our government than literally every naturalized US citizen that I know (which is a HELL of a lot of people).

[birdog1960]

No, 3rd contends that capping compensation levels is unconstitutional. That's why, when floated the idea back in 2008, they called it a "windfall tax," which was HIGHLY unconstitutional because what they were suggesting was not an ultra-high tax rate but a bill of attainder against those "making too much money" that would confiscate EVERYTHING deemed "unfairly" earned.

 

If, instead, Congress had said "everything above a certain amount of income will be taxed at 100%," that would have been legal. That also never would have passed, because it wouldn't satisfy the unwarrantedly arrogant sense of moral outrage that dumb ***** like yourself confuse with sound legislative policy (side note: this is the same confusion of moral outrage with sound policy that caused dumb ***** like you to give us the ACA.)

 

But since Congress didn't, they passed the 2012 tax law, which taxed anyone making approximately 55,000 times minimum wage at 39.6%.

 

But note...not once in all that did I mention the IRS. That's because the IRS doesn't set tax rates. Tax rates are legislated, meaning they are under the authority of the legislative branch. The IRS is part of the executive, therefore does not have authority to set tax rates. They merely enforce and collect.

 

Immigrants are required to know this to be granted citizenship. You actually know less about our government than literally every naturalized US citizen that I know (which is a HELL of a lot of people).

the irs was initially mentioned in this thread regarding this issue by gg. "someone" might have meant congress but i thought not. no one seemed upset at his mistake, likely because they made the leap from irs to irs at direction of congress. or maybe because he was making a point most agreed with. and guess who made the statement that that the effort was aimed at maintaining the drucker rule? maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. at any rate, i don't think he was talking about the 39.6%individual tax bracket but you'd need to ask him. i was arguing against the opinion that such an effort would be wrong minded because it feel that it wouldn't be.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? So without government handouts and minimum wage people are going to starve, freeze, and die from untreated diseases?

 

far fetched, isn't it? http://money.cnn.com...ents/index.html Edited October 25, 2013 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

far fetched, isn't it? http://money.cnn.com...ents/index.html

 

So student homelessness is at a record high because we have government handouts and a minimum wage. That is your point isn't it?

[birdog1960]

So student homelessness is at a record high because we have government handouts and a minimum wage. That is your point isn't it?

"there's a gap between what jobs are available, what those jobs pay and available affordable housing." that's my point and it's salient to the discussion on the compensation low paid workers receive from the companies cited in the article that this thread is based on. and probably more importantly, how many of these homeless student afre likely to be trained for jobs that pay higher than minimum wage by the time they're of age to work? of course, it will be viewed by you all as their own fault due to lack of ambition. Edited October 25, 2013 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

"there's a gap between what jobs are available, what those jobs pay and available affordable housing." that's my point and it's salient to the discussion on the compensation low paid workers receive from the companies cited in the article that this thread is based on. and probably more importantly, how many of these homeless student afre likely to be trained for jobs that pay higher than minimum wage by the time they're of age to work? of course, it will be viewed by you all as their own fault due to lack of ambition.

 

Please provide me a couple of things.

 

1. What companies were cited in the article?

2. What is the average pay for the CEO's of said companies.

3. What is the average pay for the employees of said companies but not all employees but the ones that have homeless children.

 

I'll wait.

[3rdnlng]

yes, and 3rd contends it's unconstitutional.

 

The IRS does what it is told to do. In this case collecting taxes and enforcing the law. That is why they were so uniquely qualified to administer the ACA. (/ (that's tongue-in-cheek) They are the collector/enforcer and do not set policy. It would be unconstitutional for them to determine the tax rate one should pay. Even after leading you down the path to the pond and feeding you the water, you continue to conflate taxes and compensation. Either you are truly a retard or you are purposely being disingenuous.

 

Not to hijack this thread, but for some reason you seem to have a lot of faith in the IRS. Is it because you approve of their actions in regards to any tea party groups applications for tax exempt status in the last 2-3 years?

[Tiberius]

 

Please provide me a couple of things.

1. What companies were cited in the article?

2. What is the average pay for the CEO's of said companies.

3. What is the average pay for the employees of said companies but not all employees but the ones that have homeless children.

I'll wait.

 

Why don't you state your criticism and do your own work instead of asking some else to? How lazy are you?

Edited October 25, 2013 by gatorman

[Chef Jim]

Why don't you state your criticism and do your own work instead of asking some else to? How lazy are you?

 

My questions were stating my criticism you dumbass.

[Tiberius]

 

 

My questions were stating my criticism you dumbass.

 

No, that's bull. You were trying to offer little while asking a lot, all while dragging the discussion down the rabbit hole. It's easy to ask questions that require long replies

 

What was your criticism??

[3rdnlng]

No, that's bull. You were trying to offer little while asking a lot, all while dragging the discussion down the rabbit hole. It's easy to ask questions that require long replies

 

What was your criticism??

 

Here's one for you. You are a complete idiot and retard. Why?

[DC Tom]

the irs was initially mentioned in this thread regarding this issue by gg. "someone" might have meant congress but i thought not. no one seemed upset at his mistake, likely because they made the leap from irs to irs at direction of congress. or maybe because he was making a point most agreed with. and guess who made the statement that that the effort was aimed at maintaining the drucker rule? maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. at any rate, i don't think he was talking about the 39.6%individual tax bracket but you'd need to ask him. i was arguing against the opinion that such an effort would be wrong minded because it feel that it wouldn't be.

 

I have to confess, I didn't read his post because I wasn't going to be dragged into a discussion of the minutae of the Drucker Rule as misapplied to a service economy.