$15 an hour isn't all it's cracked up to be.

originally posted by: TheArrow
You should not be able to qualify for government assistance if you work a full time job.

Except many full-time jobs don't pay enough to realistically and reasonably get by, especially if you have a family...which is the point...
They can't pay their employees, essential pieces to the success of the company, enough money to reasonably get by on, or else they can't afford to keep business running? Then there is something fundamentally wrong.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I do not know where you work as a carpenter, making $15.00 a hour. But it seems to me it is a lot of money. When I retired 4 years ago I was making $10.75 a hour doing apartment maintenance. I always had money left over at the end of the week. Now granted I do not have a family to support. I am single. I have all the same bills as everyone else. I just do not have children, however, I do have alimony and support payment going to my EX. She gets $658.00 a month forever. At $15.00 a hour I would have had money in the bank for sure.

I dont understand. Why do you have to support an ex partner if you have no children?
That doesnt make any damn sense at all. What exactly needs "supporting"?

Alimony, as far as I know, is purely spousal support. Furthermore, and also as far as I know, it's voided only if the recipient marries, thus the only way out of the alimony order aside from petitioning for it is if the ex gets remarried. If he/she is single for life afterward, you're screwed unless you can get it dropped or at least reduced.

It's seriously messed up. Personally, I'm morally opposed to alimony because it's nothing more than paying for the ex spouse to sit on their ass for life. If you're no longer married, you're supposed to be no longer responsible for any of their bills, amiright?

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I do not know where you work as a carpenter, making $15.00 a hour. But it seems to me it is a lot of money. When I retired 4 years ago I was making $10.75 a hour doing apartment maintenance. I always had money left over at the end of the week. Now granted I do not have a family to support. I am single. I have all the same bills as everyone else. I just do not have children, however, I do have alimony and support payment going to my EX. She gets $658.00 a month forever. At $15.00 a hour I would have had money in the bank for sure.

I dont understand. Why do you have to support an ex partner if you have no children?
That doesnt make any damn sense at all. What exactly needs "supporting"?

Alimony, as far as I know, is purely spousal support. Furthermore, and also as far as I know, it's voided only if the recipient marries, thus the only way out of the alimony order aside from petitioning for it is if the ex gets remarried. If he/she is single for life afterward, you're screwed unless you can get it dropped or at least reduced.

It's seriously messed up. Personally, I'm morally opposed to alimony because it's nothing more than paying for the ex spouse to sit on their ass for life. If you're no longer married, you're supposed to be no longer responsible for any of their bills, amiright?

I know right?
I was going to say "to support her lazy ass" but didnt want to be rude.
That is crazy, I cant believe that is law. If there are kids I can understand, but without kids, no way.
So technically, a woman can deliberately get married just to get a lifetime paycheck, then get divorced?
That is mind-blowingly crazy. And I thought the UK justice system had a gender bias on divorce.

there was only enough to feed 12 people at the last supper

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I do not know where you work as a carpenter, making $15.00 a hour. But it seems to me it is a lot of money. When I retired 4 years ago I was making $10.75 a hour doing apartment maintenance. I always had money left over at the end of the week. Now granted I do not have a family to support. I am single. I have all the same bills as everyone else. I just do not have children, however, I do have alimony and support payment going to my EX. She gets $658.00 a month forever. At $15.00 a hour I would have had money in the bank for sure.

I dont understand. Why do you have to support an ex partner if you have no children?
That doesnt make any damn sense at all. What exactly needs "supporting"?

Alimony, as far as I know, is purely spousal support. Furthermore, and also as far as I know, it's voided only if the recipient marries, thus the only way out of the alimony order aside from petitioning for it is if the ex gets remarried. If he/she is single for life afterward, you're screwed unless you can get it dropped or at least reduced.

It's seriously messed up. Personally, I'm morally opposed to alimony because it's nothing more than paying for the ex spouse to sit on their ass for life. If you're no longer married, you're supposed to be no longer responsible for any of their bills, amiright?

Yeah, my friend is paying $2000 a month.

And it's not gender biased. A female friend was ordered to pay $1400 a month, AND she had full custody of their child.

Seriously messed up.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: onequestion

That's how come economists say that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy - it allows people to spend money. Businesses need customers. That's why they recommend a national minimum wage of at least $10.00.

If it was so "good" for business, why haven't "businesses" done this on their own?

They don't know what's best for themselves. It involves thinking about more than oneself to see the whole picture.

The economists can see how raising the minimum wage would stimulate the economy and thus cause more spending, the economists aren't blinded by emotional resistance to helping the poor.

People can be stubborn enough to bury themselves in their own graves. They might rather do that than admitting that helping the poor is a good policy.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: onequestion

That's how come economists say that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy - it allows people to spend money. Businesses need customers. That's why they recommend a national minimum wage of at least $10.00.

If it was so "good" for business, why haven't "businesses" done this on their own?

They don't know what's best for themselves. It involves thinking about more than oneself to see the whole picture.

The economists can see how raising the minimum wage would stimulate the economy and thus cause more spending, the economists aren't blinded by emotional resistance to helping the poor.

People can be stubborn enough to bury themselves in their own graves. They might rather do that than admitting that helping the poor is a good policy.

Did you learn this in college or did you come up with the brilliant idea on your own?

Economists who have never created a single job or employed anybody know what's better for a business than the business owners do?

So you want a centralized government with jenius economists dictating economist policies? Ever seen this work anywhere?

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

the CEO of my company made 21 mill in 2010 and 19.5 mill in 2011 after not meeting the internal goals of the company. I'd say he wins even when he loses. This is a reply to your second comment on page one. Sorry I need to learn to quote the point I mean to debate.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

No one made that blanket statement. There are good and bad. Then there are really good and really bad. Then there are those in between. I bet you make 60,000 plus or better or you might get it. Oh and if you do I'm proud of you. Please teach us how it's done so we can all be so "Devil may care".
This is a reply to your third post on page 1. Not going to follow further because I am willing to bet this thread is ripe with posts of you defending the goodwill and charity of CEO's word wide.
My bad, I see you let it drop after 2 pages. Please excuse me, last comment was unwarranted and i appreciated your input, but My opinion is no man is worth the amount of money that could support multitudes. One mill is a fair cap to be happy me thinks. Anything more is gluttonous. I am quite happy at around 40k yearly. Never will be able to retire but I'm sure the Zombie apocolypse will null that issue for me some day. Until then keep making hay while the sun still shines. Peace.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: onequestion

That's how come economists say that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy - it allows people to spend money. Businesses need customers. That's why they recommend a national minimum wage of at least $10.00.

If it was so "good" for business, why haven't "businesses" done this on their own?

They don't know what's best for themselves. It involves thinking about more than oneself to see the whole picture.

The economists can see how raising the minimum wage would stimulate the economy and thus cause more spending, the economists aren't blinded by emotional resistance to helping the poor.

People can be stubborn enough to bury themselves in their own graves. They might rather do that than admitting that helping the poor is a good policy.

Did you learn this in college or did you come up with the brilliant idea on your own?

Economists who have never created a single job or employed anybody know what's better for a business than the business owners do?

So you want a centralized government with jenius economists dictating economist policies? Ever seen this work anywhere?

Did you really just make the argument that business owners know more about economics than economists, and are better suited to make decisions about economic policy? Lol...

I view this a bit differently than many so here is my take. $15 an hour is GREAT...if your expenses are lower. It isn't so much what you make, as it is what things cost and mostly how much is taken from you. I don't have the numbers to "prove" it, but I'll give you an example. Lets say it is decided by government that they need to tax everyone one cent on every dollar earned to "promote the understanding of technology". Yeah...I made that up so change it to anything you want. First...it is going to take millions just to get that passed and put in place. Then the government has to open a department do handle that collection. That may require a building, a bunch of over-paid government employees, their bosses, car allowances, etc. You then have to mail in, or they have to take your penny of every dollar each payday. The expense of the mail, the forms, etc. Once you go through all the little things that it costs to enact this one cent tax...you are talking more in expense than in the tax itself.

Car insurance doesn't need to cost $200 per month, medical insurance doesn't need to cost $1000 per month, etc. I would go out on a limb and guess that we pay more to the middle-man, interest and overhead than we actually pay for the product or service. Why? Because government wants to grow, just like any other creature. And this creature would NEVER sever a limb even if it isn't needed. The more people relying on the government, the more the government can tax you and the more control they have.

Example. If a flat 10% income tax were passed as law. How much money would we the people NOT have to spend? No more TurboTax, less accountant fees, less lawyers fees, a drastically shrunken IRS and their buildings/employees, and that goes on for so many more little things. So...it will never happen.

Increasing wages will never be the solution. Short term, sure it seems like a good idea, but long term no. Businesses will just increase the cost of good and we will be right back in the same place. At the same time destroying the value of the dollar. The correct solution would be decreasing the cost of goods by a static amount across the entire board while maintaining wages. (Along with fixing the government corruption and taxes).
Why does a gallon of milk need to cost $5 or a pair of shoes $100? Why do profit margins have to be through the roof so thae higher ups can bring in more money than they can spend while the worring class struggles? Spread the wealth, greed is taking over the world. Decreasing the cost of all goods while maintaining current wages would push us in the rigt direction. If the farmer creating the milk is paying %30 less to produce it, he can afford to sell it for %30 less. Same concept with all other companies and businesses.

a reply to: Jamie1

Neither one, I read this in The Economist. It is rare for them to support a wage hike. I don't know the different effects this would have on small businesses vs. corporations.

Also, being more educated doesn't make one's opinions worth less.

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: onequestion

Its because of national debt to private banking cartels.
We were the collateral on that debt. And our financial servitude is repayment.

Gotta love the bankers, they bankrupt the world and we give them a massive bonus called quantitative easing.
When that happens you know who runs the show. And when that happens and you are allowed to see it in all its glory, then you know that its too late and not a damn thing can be done about it.
Welcome to financial slavery friend. Its the "modern" way, money is God now.
If we had any leisure time we might just be able to wake up to the truth, given the chance to look at the evidence, so cant let that happen.

This response is lunacy. Yeah, we are all somehow collateral on a debt. Please explain to me exactly how that is true and how exactly "they" will go about collecting me as their collateral. And please explain EXACTLY how OP only making $15 an hour somehow magically repays a debt to someone you have not even really identified, lol...

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: onequestion

Its because of national debt to private banking cartels.
We were the collateral on that debt. And our financial servitude is repayment.

Gotta love the bankers, they bankrupt the world and we give them a massive bonus called quantitative easing.
When that happens you know who runs the show. And when that happens and you are allowed to see it in all its glory, then you know that its too late and not a damn thing can be done about it.
Welcome to financial slavery friend. Its the "modern" way, money is God now.
If we had any leisure time we might just be able to wake up to the truth, given the chance to look at the evidence, so cant let that happen.

This response is lunacy. Yeah, we are all somehow collateral on a debt. Please explain to me exactly how that is true and how exactly "they" will go about collecting me as their collateral. And please explain EXACTLY how OP only making $15 an hour somehow magically repays a debt to someone you have not even really identified, lol...

You need to do some research friend. At birth we are issued birth certificates. A certificate is proof of ownership.
A birth certificate certifies that the state owns you. It creates a corporation using your name (capitalised), which isnt really you. Its a corporation, which you unknowingly accept as yourself, but it isnt. The state borrows money from the private central bank with interest(usury) using bonds, a bond is simply an IOU, a promise to pay by a certain date, the collateral on the debt is the taxes that will come from your labour, and your childrens labour, and your childrens childrens labour.
The national debt is how much money is owed to the central banks. Of which the US national debt is currently 18 trillion.
Source

Heres a video from 1996 that explains it very well..

The Money Masters.


This isnt a conspiracy theory, its how the financial system actually works.

I know my response sounds like lunacy, but thats because the system is lunacy.

George Carlin was right...


You can believe it or not, the least you can do is investigate for yourself. Dont take my word for it.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: onequestion

That's how come economists say that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy - it allows people to spend money. Businesses need customers. That's why they recommend a national minimum wage of at least $10.00.

If it was so "good" for business, why haven't "businesses" done this on their own?

They don't know what's best for themselves. It involves thinking about more than oneself to see the whole picture.

The economists can see how raising the minimum wage would stimulate the economy and thus cause more spending, the economists aren't blinded by emotional resistance to helping the poor.

People can be stubborn enough to bury themselves in their own graves. They might rather do that than admitting that helping the poor is a good policy.

Did you learn this in college or did you come up with the brilliant idea on your own?

Economists who have never created a single job or employed anybody know what's better for a business than the business owners do?

So you want a centralized government with jenius economists dictating economist policies? Ever seen this work anywhere?

Did you really just make the argument that business owners know more about economics than economists, and are better suited to make decisions about economic policy? Lol...

Thats not what I read, what I read was talking about a business, not economics.
As for economists, a lot of good they are, how many predicted the last financial crash. They are about as useful as psychiatrists. Economists are just propaganda mouthpieces for the treasury. They say what they are told to.
At least thats the impression I get.