It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Governor Taxed Rich Increased the Minimum Wage -- State's Economy Is One of the Best

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I would think if you raised the minimum wage to a livable wage, you would have less people needing food stamps and government housing. You would also give the economy a boost because there would be more purchasing power.

Business owners would complain about having to raise their hourly wages. However, they should see a return in their investment with an increase in business sales and higher profits in the long run. More people able to spend money on goods and services. Just my thoughts.


Inflation will erode any benefit of manipulating wages.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Inflation will keep eroding our economy whether we raise the minimum wage or not.

Our minimum wage is being ignored by services subcontracting piecework jobs, so there is no employees, no employees costs, like unemployment, Social Security, Labor and Industry and so on.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

People who argue about the dangers of taxing the rich are historically ignorant of America's past.

They need to research how we came out of the great depression more.

Its just more uneducated people spreading ignorance.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Do none of you realize that the increased cost of doing business resulting from wage increases and higher taxation will simply result in costs being passed on to you? No one will have more money to spend because everything will cost more. Unless you have price controls, wage controls are completely meaningless. And we really don't want that, because...

You fools look around you. The government has its claws in everything, destroying everything. Why in the world would anyone who is capable of simply taking a step back and thinking for themselves for a just a couple minutes would ever think any of this is going to help anyone is simply beyond me.

It's a form of madness. You keep looking to these people to provide solutions for you and all they do is bend you over and create more problems. And you keep going back. You keep buying into their thought processes. You can't shake the programming.

How about this: Let's just stop stealing from people, hm? Let's start there.
edit on 2/25/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Taxing the rich forces more underground activity.

No wonder they send money to the Cayman Islands.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The problem is not raising the taxes, it's raising the taxes to unreasonable amounts. HIGH taxes are bad, and what this governor did was not to make the taxes high. When you talk about State taxes they are very different than Federal taxes, and there's a lot of ways to get it than income.

ETA: Minnesota had low unemployment in 2011 when this guy took over, they were ranked #10, and are now ranked #9. I really am missing this drastic change.
edit on 26-2-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Out of all of the comments I post on here--one being a specific reply to you--and that's the part that you latch on to...the appeal-to-emotion argument.

Got it.

Next time, please just reply with: "You're wasting your time, as I have no intent on debating the information presented in or the merits of my post."



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

If I make more money (profit), I know I will have to pay more taxes, as a laborer. If corporations and businesses want to avoid more taxes, give the workers a nice big raise. Lots of tax deductions there also. And the workers will have to pay more of the taxes. Maybe the profits from a well paid work force will be slower, but it will be more sustainable.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I would agree with you, but I have one major problem with that way of thinking. At what point does how much a person gets exceed their worth? Earning money is one thing, but there comes a point in my opinion where a person is gaining more than any person should for the work they do.


Well, I'll break it down this way--semantics and word choice matter. You seem to be married to the notion that compensation (I'm glad you said "earning" in your third sentence instead of continued with the "gets" line of thinking) is only worth the work that they do. This is not the case. Take a look at the way most corporations began--as small companies that grew and grew because they had an appropriate buisness model and product or service that the society in which they exist apparently feel that they need. Now, if a person's worth was only for the work that they do, then most salaries would be low--but that's not how it works. The "1%" of the world are extremely wealthy not just because of the time and effort that they've put into their skills, knowledge, product, service, business, etc. throughout their lives, but also as a compensation for providing a service or product that has become a staple or a necessity in modern society. The compensation is for convenience of providing those of us who can't manufacture or invent gasoline, or smart phones, or LCD television, or life-saving medicines, or anything else that we want or need with these things. The compensation is so that you can get on the internet on a computer through a service provider to discuss on a website your concern about the compensation of people that make all of that possible.

These people often put their (and their families') financial livlihoods on the line to follow a dream of creating something useful for society with the promise of possible wealth because of it. There is nothing wrong with this--they earn what they get because we need or want what they have.



What the one percent has in wealth I firmly believe not a single human being is deserving of, no matter what their job or position in society. The gap is too great, and it's far, far, far too much in excess. Too me that's where the argument falls apart.


But who are you to decide the ceiling of what someone "deserves" (which, in my opinion, is an inappropriate word in this discussion...it's not about deserving, it's about earning). You want to talk about arguments falling apart, but you live in a capitalist (well, crony capitalist) society, where what you are describing as 'wrong' is exactly how and why the system was designed the way it is. It's a fundamental human right to keep what you earn--not you, or any politician or philosopher, has the right to tell anyone else what they should and should not have if obtained in an appropriate way. It's not like Big Oil comes into your house once a year on April 15 and tells you that you owe them money or you go to jail. It's possible to live a lifestyle without owning a car and giving your money to them. It's absolutely possilbe to live a life without TV, and cable, and smart phones, and GMO foods, and everything else tied to a person who makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of their products.

I'm willing to be that you are unwilling to sacrifice these things. That is why they make the money that they do. The gap exists because there are those willing to risk it all for big rewards, and then there are those like (I assume) you and me who are willing to be the worker bees of society. But coveting what others have due to their hard work, intelligence, and business savvy will not create a utopian society--it serves to divide and create conflict. This is why wars are started; someone wants what someone else has.



I firmly believe in people getting paid what they're worth. I firmly believe some jobs and positions in society require a higher standard of living as an incentive to put in the work necessary to excel. I, however, do not agree that such an excessive gap is necessary. We've gone far past worth and into excess with a gap in wealth so great there really is no good reasonable excuse for it's existence.

I mean seriously, is there no limit in your mind to what another person is worth to society? How high a pedestal do you believe a person should be allowed to stand before the pedestal has gotten too high? When is it too much? What is your limit?


You and I apparently have different ideologies concerning capitalism (and don't mistake it for crony capitalism, which I despise)--I think that its existence fosters innovation, hard work, goals, betterment of societal living (sometimes), convenience, etc.

You ask me about pedestal height limits...when is too much...what is my limit. Well, my answer is in the form of a question: Why are you asking me these things? You're the one who claims that there is a limit that has already been passed. So, what is your arbitrary limit that you would set for an annual salary?

But to answer your question, I think the limit should be set at what the individual wants to keep--it's his/her company and property, so I'm not narcissistic enough to think that I have the knowledge, obligation, or job to tell them what they can do with their own stuff.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Its a historical FACT that during times of higher taxation on the rich that the middle class was stronger.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Its basic common sense. The only people against it are the rich, and those that believe that they too will be rich one day.
Which is a surprising number of people.

If a lie is repeated enough, people will believe it.
Just like WMD's.



Oh, and those who think they are going to become the next Lil Wayne isn't a surprising number of people?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Its basic common sense. The only people against it are the rich, and those that believe that they too will be rich one day.
Which is a surprising number of people.

If a lie is repeated enough, people will believe it.
Just like WMD's.



Oh, and those who think they are going to become the next Lil Wayne isn't a surprising number of people?


Those are the people I was talking about.
Celebrity worship has a reason, to give us our idols that we worship and follow.
To feed our ego's false dreams, so lives are wasted chasing fantasies.

I should know, Im a hip hop producer. I fell for the lie.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: NthOther

Its a historical FACT that during times of higher taxation on the rich that the middle class was stronger.


Uh, no it is not.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: NthOther

If I make more money (profit), I know I will have to pay more taxes, as a laborer. If corporations and businesses want to avoid more taxes, give the workers a nice big raise. Lots of tax deductions there also. And the workers will have to pay more of the taxes. Maybe the profits from a well paid work force will be slower, but it will be more sustainable.


Yeah if i work more overtime i get put into a higher tax bracket and its like i didnt even work.

Why do the shareholders get to get away with all of their money tax free yet i dont?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: NthOther

Its a historical FACT that during times of higher taxation on the rich that the middle class was stronger.


Uh, no it is not.


Here... feel free to educate yourself on America's past. Also, after you do that stop spreading ignorance for me will you?

source


The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.

Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income taxes, after exploiting every loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal


They make all the money off the wars and military industrial complex so make them pay down the national debt as well.
edit on 2/26/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Because in the 80's they changed the accounting terminology and redefined "work". That is why investors can get all the tax breaks they do. In the 80's they took tax deductions from the laborer and gave it higher incomes. There was a time I could deduct my work clothes, gas, can't remember all of them, on one form. Then they came up with all the schedules and forms with requirements I could not meet.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: NthOther

Its a historical FACT that during times of higher taxation on the rich that the middle class was stronger.


Uh, no it is not.


Here... feel free to educate yourself on America's past. Also, after you do that stop spreading ignorance for me will you?

source


The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.

Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income taxes, after exploiting every loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal


They make all the money off the wars and military industrial complex so make them pay down the national debt as well.


You do realize very few people actually paid those tax rates? A 95% tax rate doesn't mean jack if only a handful of people have to pay it. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but the information is out there. Secondly, the economyand the middle class was booming because of WWII and the fact that the US was pretty much the only industrialized nation that wasn't blown to smithereens after the war. That is what really made the economy boom. The tax rates on the books didn't have squat to do with it.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Actually your wrong. A handful of people control the nations wealth. Thats pretty much the main problem. All of our wealth is concentrated into few hands.

The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest



Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.

The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.


Nah your just plain wrong.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Thats funny Ohio did the opposite and we are just fine. I guess all this proves is if the Rich folks are dumb enough to stay in a state that takes the money they earn and gives it to their voters that taxes really do work....lol Since when did this site become a liberal agenda pusher?? I thought this was supposed to be a conspiracy site not the new forum for the dem party....smh



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

Actually your wrong. A handful of people control the nations wealth. Thats pretty much the main problem. All of our wealth is concentrated into few hands.

The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest



Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.

The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.


Nah your just plain wrong.


Some people are immensely wealthy because they have created technologies, businesses, and other things that have fundamentally changed society on a global level. Please explain why this is bad. How does Bill Gates wealthy affect you personally?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join