If raising min-wage is so great, why not make it all the way to $100?

The conclusion you've reached isn't proved to absolutely be the case, though it is of some concern to many. And that concern illustrates the importance of properly balancing any economic choices made. Still, we know the status quo, ain't the way to go; we've been there, done that.

 

Bush did not damage the economy.

 

many would disagree with you...

 

No, he got it raised for $400k / $450k and that's small business owners who doesn't get to keep that money personally. Some of that money has to stay in the business to pay employers and vendors the next year, a lot has to go to taxes. In the first qtr they have to pay the last quarter taxes and then the first quarter taxes. Do you run a business FreshAir? Of course even though you "think" you know what you are talking about you don't.

And by the way, why not $400k / $800k? Because the government is sexist. They think the little woman is home but of course all this is way above your head.

 

No fricken kidding! And if you don't invest for cap gains, it's your own damn fault. Obviously the government wants it that way or it wouldn't be that way. drum roll.... and here comes the whining.

If you want to fight the rich first you got to know what the frick your talking about. Of course politicians like Obama know as Gruber said "the stupidity of the American voter" and he got over on you. Fools!

 

were talking about personal income, not business income.......

the reason it's 400\800k is because the government assumes both may make 400k, not sure what you mean by "Because the government is sexist. They think the little woman is home"

you should do more research before you make statements like "Of course even though you "think" you know what you are talking about you don't. " or "but of course all this is way above your head.'

.....

 

Yep, exactly. And if you knew what you were talking about you would know that many small business are "S-corps". S-corp profits are reported on drum roll...... personal income taxes.

Government is sexist. Why punish two people who make near the same income. Is the little woman supposed to stay home or do they ASSume she is uneducated? If they weren't sexist then it would be $400k / $800k

It's just like W2 income. If the "little woman" stays home she doesn't make money and income isn't stacked but if both husband and wife are educated and make around the same amount that income is stacked and pushes them into a higher income bracket punishing an educated married couple. Of course you probably don't realize that either. lol

 

If both made $400k then their taxable income before deductions would be $800k. But sexist government tax code is that anything above $450k is pushed into the higher tax bracket. So why isn't it $800k?

 

not sure what you mean, if it's better to file single, why not file that way, no one forces one to file a joint return

 

not sure where your trying to go with all this, all that was said is Obama did in fact end some of the Bush tax cuts for the very rich

 

Because if you are married you have to file married filing single and you have to pay higher taxes. It's best for one to make decent money and the other not or lord forbid if you both make decent money you get hit with a marriage penalty.

But of course since you know it all you would know that.

- - - Updated - - -

And once again, income does not equal wealth. People like you don't understand anything past the basics if even that and that's why he had to be laughing his ass off at you because he pulled that one off.

It's easy to fool people who don't know better.

 

Yes, Democrats who do not understand the economy or the forces place blame.

Similar as to the blame placed on Obama.

 

In the long-term that is fine because when you debase currency you also debase the federal debt. In the short-term, those living on fixed incomes might have to move in with you.

 

It's standard rather than absurd to examine the extremes on any area using data.

If I wanted to know the behavioral effects of wolf admixture in dogs, I would want data from 0% to 100% wolf heritage.

In this case, the knowledge of the dependent variable as a function of the the independent variables at both ends of the spectrum is a requirement to have a rational discussion on the topic.

Even from a non-mathematical perspective, it seems pretty obvious to conceptually analyze what would happen if you continue raising minimum wage.

 

once again you misunderstood, no surprise there, I mean those with a high salary, 1 million plus a year, like I said earlier

see, we can both do the condescending game

 

Where is the right with any work or jobs boom, masquerading as "charity" that enables multimillion dollar bonuses for Capitalists.

 

Why not end the capital gains distinction for income; it doesn't work to ensure jobs booms, so why not end that tax experiment.

 

It means public policies should be more market friendly.

 

Once again, you were not listening. Obama wanted to go after people making $200k single / $250k married. That's high income, it has nothing to do with wealth. And look at the sexism built right into our government. Because this would hit people in DC it was raised to $400k single / $450k married. It's still high income, not wealth and it's still sexist.

Before you debate something at least know what you are talking about. "The stupidity of the American voter" as the leftie Gruber said on video. Obama and his leftie clan agree. And you proved them right, you bought hook, line and sinker. Just because you've climbed the income ladder and make high income doesn't mean you're rich. Damn, you're all a bunch of hard heads and too easy to fool when your guy tells you a bunch of lies.

 

no, once again your not paying attention (like that?), he wanted to raise taxes on people making 250k single or 500k married.... he did not get that, republicans threatened to raise taxes on the working class if he did

he also tried to get something passed as you describe, that did not pass either.... why would it, then people would just file separately if it benefited them more.. he kept trying many things, the goal was to benefit the working class, the right was against that



when it comes to tax cuts for the working class, the right asks how you gonna pay for it

when it comes to tax cuts for the rich, it's letting them keep more of their own money

" Just because you've climbed the income ladder and make high income doesn't mean you're rich. "

leave it to republicans to say making over 250k or even 450k a year is not rich, those btw are often the same people that complain the min wage should be lower not higher

.

 

No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Promise broken
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ily-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

But as the Supreme Court has now authoritatively ruled, the Obamacare individual mandate, requiring workers to purchase the health insurance the government specifies each family must buy, is a tax. And that tax applies to the middle class and working people.

[video=youtube_share;Q8erePM8V5U]http://youtu.be/Q8erePM8V5U[/video]

 

What whining? We are the rich.

 

By extrapolation of stupidity if we lower the minimum wage to zero we get full employment. See how well your extrapolation principle works!

 

That is certainly true. He pretty well damn near destroyed it.

 

Nobody has come up with how he managed to do that. His job was the boss of the Feds as their supervisor.

But, no, Bush took no action that harmed the economy.