Overpopulation in this country is really not a danger. I'm too lazy to look up the actual number, but we're near the bottom in persons per habitable square mile. It's not even really close. That's not to say I'm not for birth control education and education in general. When you think of Kentucky, what do you think of? Under educated hicks with missing teeth, 4 children by 3 separate fathers, each doing time for not paying child support? Spot on. Which brings up another issue with the minimum wage. I can't stand Kentucky and want to go back to the Pacific Northwest. But if I left now expecting to make it on $7.25 there by myself, I could barely make rent and couldn't afford to drive a car. It would be impossible to live in the city limits of Portland or Seattle. Here (a town of about 65,000), I could have a two bedroom apartment to myself and drive. Maybe it should be left up to the state to determine minimum wages?
If there were a maximum wage, once you reached a level where you were making that wage, what would be your incentive to continue to work harder and to do more? If you hit that wage at an upper management level, what would your incentive be to become the CEO? The people who earn exorbitant salaries do so because they don't work 8 to 5. Their jobs are extremely demanding and usually they work excessive hours and are responsible for the success of the entire business. With a maximum wage, why would anybody take on the additional responsibility, hours and stress?
There should not be a maximum wage. However,how about returning to the last time the economy was working better for most Americans. Minimum wage was $10.50 in today's dollars, and went up somewhat as productivity increased. Taxation rates were 70 or even 90% on the highest earning Americans. And, no, the rich did overall pay much higher effective rates despite tax dodges which existed then and they do today. That is why they fight so strongly to keep those rates from returning.
I have no problem with a rise in minimum wage that reflects inflation over time. When you suggest that, you set forth a rise in the minimum wage that has a reasoned basis. I am on board with that. As for taxation, I am not sure that those rates wouldn't have consequences. You don't want to stifle small businesses from hiring employees. I am, however, fully in support of phasing out deductions at a certain level of income. I am also in support of creating new tax brackets. It is insane that somebody making $300,000 is taxed the same as somebody making $10 million. It just isn't the same. Our tax bracket system is antiquated and needs to be totally revamped to reflect economic reality.
I can pretty much agree with this. A good start would be to reverse all the Bush tax cuts and then put a higher tax on the over $1 million per year incomes.
Ditch the current tax code nearly in its entirety and replace it with a progressive income tax where every American can file their taxes on a postcard. Treat ALL income as income (I'm looking at you, capital gains and dividends) and do away with the legalized tax avoidance the rich are allowed to engage in through their CPAs and tax attorneys.
A graduated flat tax ... absolutely. However, the minimum wage is the topic of discussion. To go along with a very simple graduated flat tax that starts out at a selected income level ($25,000? $30,000?), a minimum wage indexed to each state's cost of living would seem fair. That might be $15 in New York and $9 in Texas, but it would fit each local economy.
I would be against reversing the tax cuts on anybody maki under $250,000. I would enact new rates at the income milestones of $500,000; $1M; $5M and $10M.
Because that would be silly, this comment is nothing but a strawman which you are repeating because you don't have any arguments which stand up under logical examination or the application of empirical data.
raising the minimum wage appears a more effective tax on corporations than state or federal taxes. workers would spend that money more effectively than governments.
why would it be silly for a state or munincipality to raise the minimum wage (to whatever level you prefer)? Leftist want it at the federal level because competion among public policy reveals winners and losers. Make everything a blanket policy and 1) people can't escape from it (to other states) and 2) it's harder to compare the effects of alternative policies if they don't exist
It would be silly to double the minimum wage overnight. Any fool could tell you that such a change would have dramatic effects on the economy. However, increasing the minimum wage incrementally, to keep up with inflation, is necessary and should be done to make sure that wages at the lower and middle of the income distribution also increase. Good God, it's like you just regurgitate what you see on Fox, actually believing it is factual.
When have we stopped doing that? You act as if minimum wage hasn't changed in the last 100 years, then act shocked when there is resistance to the word "doubling minimum wage". Minimum wage has almost doubled 3 times in the last 50 years. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?
Commodore seemed to be arguing to have just the "liberal" states double the minimum wage to $20/hr. As I opined, this is an absurd proposition as such a change would need to be phased in over the course of years, not implemented immediately as such a large change would have dramatic impact on the economy. Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation over the last 30-40 years. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html I would be OK with a bill that raised the minimum wage to $20 incrementally over the course of a decade or a little more than that, but Commodore's post was clearly an attempt to create a strawman hypothetical which was clearly an absurd proposition.
Please don't take this as an insult, but are you mocking Commodore's absurd proposition by providing one yourself?
