How about A Nice Compromise?

It would be fantastic if we went back to 1961 regulations. No big government on our backs.

But when you think about it, Im sure the big government controlling liberals would whine about this compromise than the rich.

 

Back when we were polluting the hell out of the planet? No thank you.

 

erik

So are you saying that you dont want to compromise? And are you saying you just want the extreme left to dictate and control everyone.

 

Taxcutter says:
Compromise means giving something to get something else.

If you can't hack the 1961 regs, go to hell with the 1961 tax rates.

 

I'll take today's environment over 1961. Regulations are more good than bad.

 

If we go back to 1961 tax rates, presuming we go back to the same deductions, two things will happen. Those with enough deductions will pay less tax and those who will pay more tax will use more of the shelters allowed in 1961. Either way revenues will either go down or stay about the same.

BTW wallstreetvixen, as it is now the poor who pay payroll taxes get it back with EITC, so they really pay very little tax except sales and fuel taxes.

 

Yes because when you can't afford to eat, saving money comes naturally.

 

You don't know what poor individuals are purchasing, do you?

 

They certainly aren't purchasing BMWs.

 

So everyone needs to be able to afford a BMW to be considered financially secure?

 

...that wasn't the point.

Poor people spend a disproportionate amount of their income buying basic necessities. A man needs food, water, clothing, and shelter. Everything else is luxury. Milk costs $X regardless of what your income is.

 

The point is they can save with the money that is left over.

And I don't know what the cost of milk as to do with anything. It's a meaningless variable.

 

There isn't money left over...

No it is not. It is an example. Food will cost $X regardless of if you make $15,000 / year or $15 million per year. Food is a necessity. Poor people pay a disproportionate amount of their income paying for basic necessities.

 

Taxcutter says:
If you cannot take the regs thn the taxes are no deal.

You are not interested in compromise. You are only interested in dictating your agenda.

Hope you enjoy the maximum resistance to your agenda.

 

How do you figure? Are you using any particular methodology to determine this or are you looking at any particular statistics?

There is no fixed amount of food people purchase and there is no fixed market value of the food people purchase. Prices change all the time, as do spending habits.

What you are saying doesn't mean anything.

 

Minimum wage isn't high enough in many cities in the United States to sustain a living.

It absolutely does. The point you keep dodging is that Food cost $X (mainly a localized variable), and that cost does not discriminate on your income. A man has to eat. There is nothing to argue against.

 

It's not supposed to be. It's the minimum wage. Why you choose to take 4.6% of the labour force and apply it to majority of the lower income earners is beyond me.

We know there is enough money left over to save because we have disposable income and consumer expenditure statistics. We don't base the consumer habits of the poor on just the minimum wage earners, but the economy as a whole.

People can choose what foods they buy and what foods they decide to buy or not buy, and they choose what foods to substitute for others. The CPI-U takes into account of all substitutions and hedonic adjustments. The fact that food cost $X dollar doesn't tell you anything.

 

When was it ever supposed to be ?

 

Lobbying should be illegal.

Rand Paul or Ben Carson should start putting together an organization which would start organizing (yes, community organizing) grassroots folks in all the States to pass an "Election" amendment including:

1- One 6-year term limit for all govt. offices
2- Equal campaign amounts allotted to each candidate in a race, and NO OTHER funds are allowed to be used.
3- Lobbying should be outlawed, and huge penalties given to politicians who receive favors while in office, or after office.

 

Quote Originally Posted by ErikBEggs View Post
Minimum wage isn't high enough in many cities in the United States to sustain a living.

Yea, duh. I think it was established as a fairness regulation not an existence regulation.

 

RWAs will never let that happen. Higher taxes on the economic elites is anathema to the RWA existence. They'll take it to the wall. There is no compromise with these types. That's why the rise of the Tea Party means the end of moderate government.

 

The establish as the basis for economy liberty and self-determination, with a government limited to protecting the liberty of all citizens rather than promoting the interests of the well-connected few that like fascism.

Only fascists call stealing from the rich "progress".

People who desire progress realize that it's decades past the time that the useless start paying their "fair share" and begin "giving back to the communities" they've spent their lives stealing from.

 

As it should.

It would be different if they had a right to food, but they don't.

 

No.

It was established as a goonion treat regulation, causing the lifting of all goonion wages, which are based on the minimum wage.

It makes no economic sense.

It was merely payoff by Rodents to goonion bosses.

And still is.

 

Now it makes sense why conservatives want guns. Everyone is an enemy.