Business friendly minimum wage increase.

[Mott the Hoople]

We all know that income inequality is a real problem and if it continues it will ultimately cause civil strife so here's an idea that I heard that sounds like an effective solution that is actually very business friendly.

If a company gives X% of their profits to employees as merit raises they will get an equivalent X% amount decrease in their taxes. Unlike supply side nonsense this would create greater government revenue through increased economic stimulus and it would combat income inequality.

Conversely if a company was to increase an executives pay by say more than 10 times the median employee salary than they would have to pay a corresponding amount in tax increase. This would reign in excessive executive pay which would thrill investors and lead to greater investment.

 

[Legion Troll]

Bad idea, Mott. Everybody knows that although tax cuts and corporate welfare create jobs, giving more to workers is Socialism and will destroy America's children.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually it would decrease socialism cause it would decrease the need for government assistance programs. This is a pro business market based solution to the problem.

 

[Legion Troll]

Actually it would decrease socialism cause it would decrease the need for government assistance programs. This is a pro business market based solution to the problem.

That's just crazy talk, Mott.

Trickle-down just needs more time (and more tax cuts for the job creators plus more subsidies), and you'll see.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

We all know that income inequality is a real problem and if it continues it will ultimately cause civil strife so here's an idea that I heard that sounds like an effective solution that is actually very business friendly.

If a company gives X% of their profits to employees as merit raises they will get an equivalent X% amount decrease in their taxes. Unlike supply side nonsense this would create greater government revenue through increased economic stimulus and it would combat income inequality.

Conversely if a company was to increase an executives pay by say more than 10 times the median employee salary than they would have to pay a corresponding amount in tax increase. This would reign in excessive executive pay which would thrill investors and lead to greater investment.

You start off with a logical fallacy. First not everyone agrees and secondly, you don't know that there will be civil strife.

Any time you introduce a government scheme then by definition it is not "market based".

Somehow statists have convinced themselves of the lie. Now let me ask you. I can assume your boss and owner of your company makes more than you. Why haven't you risen up? You have stated many times you are satisfied with what you make?

So what is the problem? What about the income inequality of actors and athletes? Why aren't they lumped in?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Actually it would decrease socialism cause it would decrease the need for government assistance programs. This is a pro business market based solution to the problem.

What you should do is test this theory in real life. Go to the bank. Borrow money and use your savings and even apply for an SBA and start your own business.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You start off with a logical fallacy. First not everyone agrees and secondly, you don't know that there will be civil strife.

Any time you introduce a government scheme then by definition it is not "market based".

Somehow statists have convinced themselves of the lie. Now let me ask you. I can assume your boss and owner of your company makes more than you. Why haven't you risen up? You have stated many times you are satisfied with what you make?

So what is the problem? What about the income inequality of actors and athletes? Why aren't they lumped in?

because they are the product.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What you should do is test this theory in real life. Go to the bank. Borrow money and use your savings and even apply for an SBA and start your own business.

no...you give employers a tax break. It's up to them to use it. If they don't, then it wouldn't work. What's your solution? Let people starve? Pay more in Government assistance?

 

[anatta]

We all know that income inequality is a real problem and if it continues it will ultimately cause civil strife so here's an idea that I heard that sounds like an effective solution that is actually very business friendly.

If a company gives X% of their profits to employees as merit raises they will get an equivalent X% amount decrease in their taxes. Unlike supply side nonsense this would create greater government revenue through increased economic stimulus and it would combat income inequality.

Conversely if a company was to increase an executives pay by say more than 10 times the median employee salary than they would have to pay a corresponding amount in tax increase. This would reign in excessive executive pay which would thrill investors and lead to greater investment.

agreed. income in equality in that sense can be looked at as a national security issue.
You can only run an oligarchy in a democracy for so long before the people at the bottom figure they got nothing to lose-
and take matters in their own hands

 

[Mott the Hoople]

agreed. income in equality in that sense can be looked at as a national security issue.
You can only run an oligarchy in a democracy for so long before the people at the bottom figure they got nothing to lose-
and take matters in their own hands

Which can be avoided. My point is that this is a problem that can be solved without hurting business owners.

 

[Legion Troll]

That's nuts.

What kind of successful business owner would think about giving the people who work for him a break, anyway?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-on-leadership-chobani-20160430-story.html

 

[canceled.2021.1]

no...you give employers a tax break. It's up to them to use it. If they don't, then it wouldn't work. What's your solution? Let people starve? Pay more in Government assistance?

Another logical fallacy. This time you are using argumentum ad misercordiam


You don't understand markets, economics and how wages are set.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Which can be avoided. My point is that this is a problem that can be solved without hurting business owners.

And so what we need is some government scheme right?

 

[Legion Troll]

We need Jesus.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

For some reason some people think that employees have ZERO choice in this matter. If they feel that their skill set can garner them a higher wage somewhere else, then they should pursue that opportunity. If their skill set does not garner them a higher wage, then they should set about acquiring the skill sets necessary for a higher wage. This conversation always reminds of the debate over teacher salaries. We hear all the time about how poorly paid teachers are. What I can't understand is why people would go into a profession that they think pays so little. Of course then I hear "They don't do it for the money". To which I would say, if you don't do it about the money, then don't complain about the money.

 

[cawacko]

We all know that income inequality is a real problem and if it continues it will ultimately cause civil strife so here's an idea that I heard that sounds like an effective solution that is actually very business friendly.

If a company gives X% of their profits to employees as merit raises they will get an equivalent X% amount decrease in their taxes. Unlike supply side nonsense this would create greater government revenue through increased economic stimulus and it would combat income inequality.

Conversely if a company was to increase an executives pay by say more than 10 times the median employee salary than they would have to pay a corresponding amount in tax increase. This would reign in excessive executive pay which would thrill investors and lead to greater investment.

To your later point what firm or industry is seeing reduced investment based on executive pay? If a company's stock performs well do you think investors care about how much the CEO makes?

 

[Rune]

agreed. income in equality in that sense can be looked at as a national security issue.
You can only run an oligarchy in a democracy for so long before the people at the bottom figure they got nothing to lose-
and take matters in their own hands

Nope.
When people can't feed their children then and only then will they rise up. Political scientists know this. That's why they are providing food for the poor.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Nope.
When people can't feed their children then and only then will they rise up. Political scientists know this. That's why they are providing food for the poor.

Logical fallacies abound. So the argument goes something like this. If you can't feed your child, your response isn't going to be maybe trying to acquire your own food? It is rise up and commit violence? Gotta love the liberal mind and their faith in humanity.

 

[Celticguy]

It would increase govt revenue as those people with the windfall pay a higher effective rate. Any stimulus is a crap shoot and unless it's viewed as a regular annual thing it's just as likely to pay some debt.

 

[Legion Troll]

It would increase govt revenue as those peopletters with the windfall pay a higher effective rate. Any stimulus is a crap shoot and unless it's viewed as a regular annual thing it's just as likely to pay some debt.

Government needs money from somewhere to fund corporate subsidies. Since Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich, who does that leave?