You Can't Afford A One-Bedroom Apartment On Minimum Wage

Thus is bullshit. Companies make five year plans all the time. They do adjust them regularly, but smart companies DO plan ahead.
ok it was a solid 6 mth plan, a soft 1 yr estimate and a "what we'd like to happen in 5..nothing I'd call a concrete..Spandy wants me to believe it's possible to plan and implement something on speculation and "if your good enough" it should work out..i think he needs to spend more time in reality.
 
I try to help the little guy here in Hawaii, I get my gas from a mom and pop gas station and a lot of my fresh greens at the farmers markets, and my coffee from local growers which is not cheap but tasty. So it looks like we as a culture are changing and it will not be good for the little guy. imo

That's the choice I also make to do my small part. Support local, avoid monster chains. It's a shame the feel good policies that have stick it to the rich in mind actually end up doing the opposite.
 
We've been bombarded by corporate propaganda for nearly half a century and it's been so effective you have working man fighting working man, instead of working man fighting to secure basic employee rights and fair wages

I always got "Don't you want the company to succeed? sometime you need to give up something for the greater good, don't you want to know you'll have a job, that's why we need you to (give up benefits,pay more for benefits, take a pay cut,etc,etc) oh and good news, we made 10% more profit this year.." :finger:

I was always the bad guy amongst other employees because they couldn't see the companies record profits year after year as we got shit cut..they fell right into the "if the company doesn't do good you won't either" mentality, even though the better the company did..we didn't see any of it..not a damn thing for our 50,60,80,100hr weeks, our holidays we were told we had to work or lose our jobs, then when it came review time..it was always amazing how the company was "in a bad period" and couldn't swing any raises this year..or last year..or the year before..but always had profits at least 10% above the last years...

Ya know how they say environment effects your perception....yeah F big business, F our economy..i want it to burn...:fire:
 
The internet is where all the jobs went. It sounds like you said to somebody that you were making money posting here and you never answered me about it, so you have it figured out. Why would someone go to the store nowadays when you can buy stuff online cheeper than driving to the local store? Don't you think that has something to do with job creation?

Why do you think all these empty store fronts are still empty? I believe it doesn't pay to compete with big business when shipping is free and products are cheeper online. The very tool you use to bitch about things, is part of the reason things are going in the shitter with job creation. imo

We still need to produce those things that are sold on the internet. Companies continue to offshore to avoid our comparatively high corporate tax rate, yet the solution given by many is raising those rates.

I'd rather get a little of something than all of nothing. If we cut our business taxes below the level of competing countries, we'd actually bring new companies here instead of seeing old companies leave. Ask Ireland.

Becoming a service nation living on debt is a poor recipe for long term health.
 
Just like and your ilk throw out ANY evidence that doesn't come from "liberal douchebag approved" universities and organizations. "I only accept sources that are populated by liberal fucksticks who would NEVER cross the party line for fear of retribution from their own."

aka factual information = tangible proof?

:lol:

5 star thread, pada..so entertaining!:wink:
 
We still need to produce those things that are sold on the internet. Companies continue to offshore to avoid our comparatively high corporate tax rate, yet the solution given by many is raising those rates.

I'd rather get a little of something than all of nothing. If we cut our business taxes below the level of competing countries, we'd actually bring new companies here instead of seeing old companies leave. Ask Ireland.

Becoming a service nation living on debt is a poor recipe for long term health.
Are you opposed to enacting legislation preventing American companies from offshoring jobs?

I find it very odd you believe American companies ship jobs overseas because of the "high" (the fuck?) corporate tax rate instead of the low labor costs

Why didn't American companies like GM, Ford or American Airlines offshore their jobs in the 50's when corporate tax rates were twice as high as they are now?
 
We still need to produce those things that are sold on the internet. Companies continue to offshore to avoid our comparatively high corporate tax rate, yet the solution given by many is raising those rates.

I'd rather get a little of something than all of nothing. If we cut our business taxes below the level of competing countries, we'd actually bring new companies here instead of seeing old companies leave. Ask Ireland.

Becoming a service nation living on debt is a poor recipe for long term health.

This is exactly the 'logic' that got us INTO the mess we're in.

Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
 
I oppose the Obama liberal mass offshoring TPP agreement libs are trying to fuck us with.
I oppose the NAFTA deal that the Clinton fucked us with.

This would be the first thing you've posted that I agree with...

Except that it's the rich right that's been pushing this treaty the hardest. Lefties don't like it and never have.
 
"The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s. It ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession. Narrowly defined, the period spanned from 1945 to 1952, with overall growth lasting well until 1971, though there are some debates on dating the period, and booms in individual countries differed, some starting as early as 1945, and overlapping the rise of the East Asian economies into the 1980s or 1990s.

During this time there was high worldwide economic growth; Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained growth, together with full employment. Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as Greece (Greek economic miracle), West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle), and Italy (Italian economic miracle)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
The claim is that high tax rates cause economic growth, your post does not in any way redeem itself as evidence of this claim. Nor does it in any way refute my claim that the USA had an economic boom during those years, in fact your post actually agrees with my assertion.

So why did you post it?
 
And then there is this point: The state of massachusetts says it takes about $42K/yr for a single person to live here, yet min wage is $9/hr*40hr=360*52=18,720/yr BEFORE TAXES.. but i guess working 100hours at part time jobs is considered an acceptable career by many people on here..I have no issue paying part time employees sub-living wage, as long as a company doesn't make 90%of their positons "part time"....Wal-mart..:finger:, but there should be a min wage for full time work, and a different one for part-time...something that reflects the states living conditions. No one working 40+ hours at one job shouldn't be able to provide for them self.
 
The claim is that high tax rates cause economic growth, your post does not in any way redeem itself as evidence of this claim. Nor does it in any way refute my claim that the USA had an economic boom during those years, in fact your post actually agrees with my assertion.

So why did you post it?

so, do you send in tax returns with a big 0 written in crayon like doer?
 
This would be the first thing you've posted that I agree with...

Except that it's the rich right that's been pushing this treaty the hardest. Lefties don't like it and never have.


I agree the right is pushing it however many dems are to.
Unfortunately corporate scum and there lobbyist have compromised both sides of the isle.


Even though I dont support Warren I do admire how she has gone after Obama and the TPP.
Props to the Cherokee!

PS last i checked Obama was a lefty
 
The claim is that high tax rates cause economic growth, your post does not in any way redeem itself as evidence of this claim. Nor does it in any way refute my claim that the USA had an economic boom during those years, in fact your post actually agrees with my assertion.

So why did you post it?
How bout this one?
"Republicans say higher taxes on the wealthy kill jobs. In 2001, George W. Bush spearheaded the largest tax reduction in U.S. history (overwhelmingly benefiting our wealthiest citizens) and unemployment rates quickly spiked higher and have remained nearly double the Clinton era levels to this day.

When were the golden years of U.S. full employment? How about the 1960s when the highest earners paid up to 91 percent in taxes? How about the Clinton years (4 percent unemployment) when the wealthy paid 36 percent in taxes (the level President Barack Obama wants to again be the highest rate)? Small businesses hire more workers when demand for their goods and services increase, not when their tax rates decrease."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...023_1_tax-rate-largest-tax-reduction-tax-code

"Nevertheless, looking at the raw correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth can be helpful for getting a rough sense of the likely impacts of higher taxation on growth. One recent paper by Pikkety, Saez, and Stantcheva looks at the correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth and finds the growth is higher when top marginal tax rates are higher. I restrict myself to the historical experience of the United States and go back to 1930. In particular, I took real chained per capita GDP growth from 1930 to the present from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) website. The correlation over this period between the top marginal tax rate and output growth is strong and positive as can be seen below:

6a00d83451b33869e2017c32cc9524970b-800wi


A rise in the top marginal tax rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 5.85 percentage points per year. One reason that this simple correlation might overstate the impact of the marginal tax rate on growth is that the top growth years were in the early 40s when the government was spending heavily and when the country was finally recovering from the Great Depression. If we look only at the post war period (after 1946), a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase of only 2.69 percentage points of growth. Moreover, the statistical significance of the relationship becomes marginal, as the p-value rises from 0.017 to 0.122. On the other hand, if we look at the time period encompassing 1960 to the present, a rise in the top rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 3.03 percentage points of growth per year, and the relationship becomes more statistically significant (with a p-value of 0.064 percent). Finally, if we look only at the years since 1980, a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase in growth of 3.87 percentage points. In this case, the relationship is statistically insignificant (with a p-value of 0.392 percent), in part because the sample size is small.

While we cannot say that there is a robust significant positive relationship between tax rates and growth, it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton. One possible reaction to this finding is that what matters more than the top marginal tax rate on income is the capital gains tax rate but growth has also been higher when the capital gains tax rate has been higher."

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/does-taxing-the-wealthy-hurt-growth.html
 
Are you opposed to enacting legislation preventing American companies from offshoring jobs?

I find it very odd you believe American companies ship jobs overseas because of the "high" (the fuck?) corporate tax rate instead of the low labor costs

Why didn't American companies like GM, Ford or American Airlines offshore their jobs in the 50's when corporate tax rates were twice as high as they are now?

Ever watch the show "Shark Tank"....the first thing they suggest doing is moving manufacturing to a "LCR" - "Low Cost Region" usually Asia or India..because of..wait for it..wait.....wait......extremely low manufacturing costs!!! I one saw episode where a guy was building a manufacturing plant..at what he knew would be reduced profits..in order to bring jobs to his community. The "Sharks" loved his idea..but refused to work with him unless he shut that plant down and went overseas...Good business practice doesn't mean good for the country..but they don't care if they can boost their bottom lines..
 
The claim is that high tax rates cause economic growth, your post does not in any way redeem itself as evidence of this claim. Nor does it in any way refute my claim that the USA had an economic boom during those years, in fact your post actually agrees with my assertion.

So why did you post it?
Also, just to clarify, nobody is saying "high tax rates cause economic growth". We are saying "high tax rates don't prevent economic growth"
 
Back
Top