Baltimore mayor vetoes $15 minimum wage bill

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  You have your home city as Calgary. You probably know that Alberta is also soon to be a $15/hr minimum. The left must be a ubiquitous presence. Although I have to say, for the many years I spent in Alberta, it was always the most conservative province.

Sort of. The reason the NDP even won was riding the coattails of Albertans frustration with PC corruption. Provincially people are already fed up of the NDP even in Calgary. I dunno about Edmonton. They are trying to unite PCs and WR but tbh I think both parties would decimate NDP even by themselves in the upcoming election. I just recently got my Canadian citizenship so I can now vote in both countries' elections. Federally is another matter. I will say I do have my wife's ok to move us to the US should this economic stagnation continue, this stupid policy on Islam continue/worsen, and Trudeau get another term. But like with all things, patience. 

[OriZ 3,165]

13 hours ago, ccneat said:

I don't know where to start, but let me try to be respectful of folks time.

 

I bring up intra-class struggle   because I see it, even on this site, and it's morally wrong. It doesn't make me less wrong that bring it up or more right that i repeat myself.

 

Creating a regulatory structure to protect those at the bottom is supported by the law. Maybe you are looking for some sort of libertarian utopia that does not exist. I never said business small or large were greedy or evil, those folks have to do their job to hold down costs.

 

We can discuss protecting mom and pop stores and still help large corporations do the best for society.  

So once again no answers, just more deflection. Still waiting for the issues brought up to be addressed, or an actual solution to the adverse effects mentioned. Don't worry, you're allowed to write as mch or as little as you'd like, nobody in this fourm has a gun held to their head and nobody has to read someting they don't want to read. I haven't gotten the answers because there are no answers, there is no good counter argument to be made, which I am quite used to. If being the one too look at the big picture and acknowledging these adverse effects means I am looking for some libertarian utopia then I guess I'm gulty as charged.

 

How are you going to "deal with large corporations"? Do you have an answer? More regulations, more laws? Hell, once we raise min wage to $15 an hour, why don't we also pass laws that don't allow these companies to then raise prices, so they can just either fire people or close. Then, we won't let them fire anybody, and lastly, we won't allow them to close. Sounds fair to me. As I told Yuna, I believe in treating employees fairly. When I walk into a place and see they don't even have a stool to sit on when customers are not around, I don't appreciate it very much. Do I think the government should mandate everything though? No I don't(although back in Israel they did pass a law that people should be allowed to sit down for X minutes). I see min wage the way it was meant to be, an entry level wage, not a "got it made" one. How do you expect a small business to pay someone $15 an hour, when there are many small business people that can't and don't even pay themselves that? There is a delicate balance that should be kept because once you break that balance, and I definitely believe $15 an hour will break that balance, you're only asking for trouble. If they're not going to be able to afford to pay people $15 an hour, they will either close which is A. Unfair to them and B. Bad for the economy, or better yet, they will keep paying people less than min wage just do it under the table and there goes some revenue. Are there corporations who take advantage of the system and take advantage of people? Of course, my wife used to work for one. Want to make some real change? Why don't you take your own risk, your own time and capital, start your own company, pay people $15 an hour, and then they will come work for you instead of your competition. Your competition will either close, and/or start paying them the same. Until then, you do not have the right to tell other people that have put their blood sweat and tears into something what to do just becuase you think it is "the right thing" to do.

 

8 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  Feel free to think what you want. However it's telling that here in the Libertarian rhetoric capital of the world, the Libertarian party gets ~3% of the popular vote. Not the most successful concept if you ask me. 

I think that is because very few agree with them100%. You can be libertarian on more issues than not but still have a few issues that are non starters.

[OriZ 3,165]

14 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Two TOS-violating posts have been removed -- the first for "Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Forums," and the second for "Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users."

Darn, I always miss out on all the fun.

[Dakine10 5,452]

4 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

I think that is because very few agree with them100%. You can be libertarian on more issues than not but still have a few issues that are non starters.

  Well yeah, I think you could say that for anything though. The concept of a libertarian utopia is just as silly as Marx's communist one. Both rely on an aspect of human nature that doesn't exist in the real world. 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  Well yeah, I think you could say that for anything though. The concept of a libertarian utopia is just as silly as Marx's communist one. Both rely on an aspect of human nature that doesn't exist in the real world. 

Too many people conform to ideological stereotypes so if the shoe fits. When people start thinking more independently (starting with voting for someone besides the chosen D/R candidate on occasion), which reflects in their arguments and clunterarguments, then they deserve to lose the label. 

[IAMX 3,055]

7 hours ago, OriZ said:

So once again no answers, just more deflection. Still waiting for the issues brought up to be addressed, or an actual solution to the adverse effects mentioned. Don't worry, you're allowed to write as mch or as little as you'd like, nobody in this fourm has a gun held to their head and nobody has to read someting they don't want to read. I haven't gotten the answers because there are no answers, there is no good counter argument to be made, which I am quite used to. If being the one too look at the big picture and acknowledging these adverse effects means I am looking for some libertarian utopia then I guess I'm gulty as charged.

 

How are you going to "deal with large corporations"? Do you have an answer? More regulations, more laws? Hell, once we raise min wage to $15 an hour, why don't we also pass laws that don't allow these companies to then raise prices, so they can just either fire people or close. Then, we won't let them fire anybody, and lastly, we won't allow them to close. Sounds fair to me. As I told Yuna, I believe in treating employees fairly. When I walk into a place and see they don't even have a stool to sit on when customers are not around, I don't appreciate it very much. Do I think the government should mandate everything though? No I don't(although back in Israel they did pass a law that people should be allowed to sit down for X minutes). I see min wage the way it was meant to be, an entry level wage, not a "got it made" one. How do you expect a small business to pay someone $15 an hour, when there are many small business people that can't and don't even pay themselves that? There is a delicate balance that should be kept because once you break that balance, and I definitely believe $15 an hour will break that balance, you're only asking for trouble. If they're not going to be able to afford to pay people $15 an hour, they will either close which is A. Unfair to them and B. Bad for the economy, or better yet, they will keep paying people less than min wage just do it under the table and there goes some revenue. Are there corporations who take advantage of the system and take advantage of people? Of course, my wife used to work for one. Want to make some real change? Why don't you take your own risk, your own time and capital, start your own company, pay people $15 an hour, and then they will come work for you instead of your competition. Your competition will either close, and/or start paying them the same. Until then, you do not have the right to tell other people that have put their blood sweat and tears into something what to do just becuase you think it is "the right thing" to do.

 

I think that is because very few agree with them100%. You can be libertarian on more issues than not but still have a few issues that are non starters.

Spot on. 

 

The deal with corporations is the shoddy US tax structure and how easily it is manipulated by corporations. They simply need to be closed with a flat tax based on the type of ownership structure (sole proprietorship vs partnership vs incorporation). No exemptions, no deductions, pay the tax you owe and carry on. 

[OriZ 3,165]

8 minutes ago, SRVT said:

Spot on. 

 

The deal with corporations is the shoddy US tax structure and how easily it is manipulated by corporations. They simply need to be closed with a flat tax based on the type of ownership structure (sole proprietorship vs partnership vs incorporation). No exemptions, no deductions, pay the tax you owe and carry on. 

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by no deductions. Companies are allowed to have deductions for business expenses just like people get deductions for certain things in their personal tax return, I have no problem with that. The loopholes are a different story and need to be closed. Part of the reason I don't believe Trump's plan to cut corporate taxes will prompt the kind of growth the US enjoyed following the tax reforms of the 1950’s and the 1980’s is that the principal engines of economic expansion were already loaded with fuel at those points, mainly in the form of rapid underlying labor force growth and slack labor market capacity which is not at all true today. But also, the effective tax rate of US corporations (taxes actually paid as a fraction of pre tax profits) is already lower than at any point in the post-war era prior to the 2008-2009 collapse. Also, since sole proprietorships currently file on their personal return and pay a higher rate than where the corporate tax rate is expected to be, I think it would only be fair that no matter the type of business or filing the tax rate should be similar.

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by no deductions. Companies are allowed to have deductions for business expenses just like people get deductions for certain things in their personal tax return, I have no problem with that. The loopholes are a different story and need to be closed. Part of the reason I don't believe Trump's plan to cut corporate taxes will prompt the kind of growth the US enjoyed following the tax reforms of the 1950’s and the 1980’s is that the principal engines of economic expansion were already loaded with fuel at those points, mainly in the form of rapid underlying labor force growth and slack labor market capacity which is not at all true today. But also, the effective tax rate of US corporations (taxes actually paid as a fraction of pre tax profits) is already lower than at any point in the post-war era prior to the 2008-2009 collapse. Also, since sole proprietorships currently file on their personal return and pay a higher rate than where the corporate tax rate is expected to be, I think it would only be fair that no matter the type of business or filing the tax rate should be similar.

With all the loopholes I see even with small businesses and, say, 1099s, as just one example, this is why a simple system needs to be in place. Corporations cannot get away with that. But corporations get other incentive based deductions and subsidies. This kind of system is set up to evade. Given the different ways of filing, different standards of statements required, per type of ownership makes sense to keep that aspect as is. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by SRVT

[Dashinka 26,709]

9 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  Well yeah, I think you could say that for anything though. The concept of a libertarian utopia is just as silly as Marx's communist one. Both rely on an aspect of human nature that doesn't exist in the real world. 

Here, I fixed it for you.

 

"Well yeah, I think you could say that for anything though. The concept of a libertarian utopia is just as silly as Marx's communist socialist one. Both rely on an aspect of human nature that doesn't exist in the real world." 

[Dakine10 5,452]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Here, I fixed it for you.

 

"Well yeah, I think you could say that for anything though. The concept of a libertarian utopia is just as silly as Marx's communist socialist one. Both rely on an aspect of human nature that doesn't exist in the real world." 

  Just type 'Post count' next time. 

[Dashinka 26,709]

1 hour ago, Dakine10 said:

  Just type 'Post count' next time. 

"Post count"?

[OriZ 3,165]

So now it's about race, lol, figures

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-black-lives-matter-minimum-wage-activists-20170324-story.html

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, OriZ said:

So now it's about race, lol, figures

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-black-lives-matter-minimum-wage-activists-20170324-story.html

It's always about race for the left. But good news is, as the election shows, the race bait has little effect anymore. They're gonna have to up the ante or find a new schtick to stay relevant.