the minimum wage: reality check

imagem5.png
 
CFM said:
Jesus didn't teach socialism. Not one thing he taught involved the government mandating one person be forced to provide to another no matter how you twist it.

Keep trying. Someday you might be up to the intellectual level of a monkey.
Click to expand...

Don't be too hard on AssholeTroll....

"The worker is worthy of his wages." has some truth to it......

even if that worker is only worth $5 hour.....or less as it is in his case.....

Poor Asshole Troll
 
callinectes said:
No, I've got one piece of anecdotal "evidence"that just so happens to come from me. But to show you how gracious and magnanimous I am, I polled 15 of my high school seniors and juniors with one question: "If you were making $15 an hour at a fast food joint, would you consider it as a permanent career choice?". 12 said absolutely not, 2 mouth breathing idiots said "hell, yes!", and one moron said he'd have to think about it. So, you've got 2 in your corner and one on the fence. Congratulations. Go Team 'murica!
Click to expand...

You think anecdotal evidence is valid?

Are you a "mouth breathing idiot" for teaching "as a permanent career choice" (if that's what you really do) when there are higher-paying jobs available?

Did I say "making $15 an hour at a fast food joint" should be "a permanent career choice?"

I'll understand if you won't answer those questions.
 
CFM said:
If the $15/hr is mandated, they would do more now to earn it than they did before it was raised or their wage would be $0. If I'm going to be required to pay it, they're going to be required to earn it.
Click to expand...
but you're not being required to pay it. You'll recieve an equivalent amount in tax reduction. Net cost to you as an employer is zero.

The advantages are no net increase in labor cost for employers, higher wage for the employee, incentivsating full time work, decreased government spending on public assistance, and economic stimulus that creates new jobs, more productivity and generates more tax revenue.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
but you're not being required to pay it. You'll recieve an equivalent amount in tax reduction. Net cost to you as an employer is zero.

The advantages are no net increase in labor cost for employers, higher wage for the employee, incentivsating full time work, decreased government spending on public assistance, and economic stimulus that creates new jobs, more productivity and generates more tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Shows you have no concept of reality and business. According to the Obama administration, more jobs have been created yet how many millions more are on food stamps than when he became President. Are you willing to tell me spending on food stamps has gone down by adding millions more?

Hate to break it to you but if giving someone something they didn't earn was an incentive to work, the $22 trillion wasted on social welfare from the war on poverty, unemployment would be zero. Giving someone something they don't earn isn't an incentive.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
you mean like many corporations don't?
Click to expand...

Are you saying corporations don't contribute to society?

This ins't about corporations but I'm not surprised you avoid the topic and divert. You're afraid of the truth and hide from it like the typical Liberal pussy.
 
CFM said:
Why no, it's not necessarily true and guaranteed.

While some may pay income taxes, many still won't.
Click to expand...
At full time employment at $15/ hr would be $30,000/year so the vast majority would be paying federal income taxes. That's not to mention more in State, local, sales and other regressive sin taxes.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
At full time employment at $15/ hr would be $30,000/year so the vast majority would be paying federal income taxes. That's not to mention more in State, local, sales and other regressive sin taxes.
Click to expand...

That's a statement you can't prove unless you know the specifics of each minimum wage worker's situation. That they would isn't something you can claim to that degree. You want to say it is because it fits your agenda.

A single person would but a single parent with children would not. The numbers tell the true story not your agenda.

Currently a family of four with 2 adults/2 children doesn't pay a dime of federal income taxes until the gross family income is $48,150 then it's a whopping $6. In my State, they still wouldn't pay state income taxes. As far as the others, they are paid based on choice.
 
CFM said:
Shows you have no concept of reality and business. According to the Obama administration, more jobs have been created yet how many millions more are on food stamps than when he became President. Are you willing to tell me spending on food stamps has gone down by adding millions more?

Hate to break it to you but if giving someone something they didn't earn was an incentive to work, the $22 trillion wasted on social welfare from the war on poverty, unemployment would be zero. Giving someone something they don't earn isn't an incentive.
Click to expand...
And you're closed minded and mathematically impaired. You're basing your arguments on a false premise. No one would be getting something for nothing. You would have to work full time productively or be fired like anyone else. Why is this an objectionable idea when there is no net cost to employers?
 
CFM said:
That's a statement you can't prove unless you know the specifics of each minimum wage worker's situation. That they would isn't something you can claim to that degree. You want to say it is because it fits your agenda.

A single person would but a single parent with children would not. The numbers tell the true story not your agenda.
Click to expand...
Actually it is. You just want to focus on income tax and not total taxes. That's illogical.

what agenda other than to increase standard of living and employment at no net cost to business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top