151–160 of 354 posts
the min wage is long overdue, its should be somewhere near $25/hr this is how you 'tax' billionaires
I got my first job as a grocer in 2010 which paid a minimum wage of $7.25/hr. That was 15 years ago and the minimum wage is still $7.25/hr.
Poorest workers are hit hardest by pretty much anything related to money.
Explanation: to a well off person, 25% higher gas or food prices is just an annoyance. Nothing in their day to day life will change because of that. To a poor person it's brutal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Decades of worsening conditions for the commoner is Ron Wyden's idea of a booming economy. Democrats are useful idiots. I can't anymore, folks. Republicans passed the largest tax cuts for billionaires, increased the deficit by trillions, and kicked millions of people of medicaid. Meanwhile, Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs we've ever seen which affect the poorest the most. Yet…
> Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs Tariffs incentivize domestic production. See the case of chicken tax and pickup trucks. While we do pay for tariffs now, later down the road we should not as more things would be made domestically. If you don’t do tariffs, there is no way to force producers to onshore.
Economists pretty much universally agree that tariffs are bad for both sides. It can make sense to use them to preserve strategic industries even if it’s less efficient economically. For example, tariffs on food could make sense to ensure an enemy can’t starve you with a blockade. But as a blanket policy it’s just bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a bill due at the end of the month is forgiven on the 25th, were expenses cut? What if the debt is forgiven on the 2nd of the next month? I’d wager most people would consider those scenario cuts. However, in your framework, the verbiage is different despite a shared outcome.
Bills are not due in advance. The analogy is inapt. The taxes were cut 8 years ago. There aren't further "cuts". Billionare tax rates have been the same for the last 8 years, and will continue at the same rate at least into next year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is when the status quo would have increased taxes. That may not be a cut of current taxes, but in the longer timeframe it is absolutely a tax cut.
Framing it as not increasing taxes being a cut is misleading. It's just as disingenuous as scaling back a proposed budget increase and calling it a "cut". The FTC wouldn't let businesses get away with such language, why should the government get a pass?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps if we taxed the billionaires more we could subsidize increased wages for small business owners or even do something actually good like provide universal basic income so that they cannot be so easily exploited for wildly undervalued labor
The value of labor is what people are willing to pay for it.
What slowing wage growth? For the poorest the wages have essentially not increased for a long time right? It hasn’t even kept up with inflation. The recent bill actually makes it much worse.
Maybe dramatically increasing the supply of something lowers its price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government tries hard to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand, but so far has failed 100% of the time. The government can implement wage and price controls, but those still do not set the actual value. For example, in the USSR, the price of bread was fixed by the state. But the real price of bread was how long you were willing to wait in line for it. BTW, in the US, you are free to set up a company and then pay yo…
> but so far has failed 100% of the time Labor rights have been a raging success. 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage, sick leave, vacation leave (in non-shithole countries). >BTW, in the US, you are free to set up a company and then pay your workers whatever you want to. What happens when competition with deeper pockets price dumps you into oblivion? Free market is a free market only when there is competition based on…
so much success that now you need two working adults to support a family of 4 while 60 years ago a working man could support a much larger family with a single income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not know why anyone would bet that the executive order defined tariffs would stay. It was and still clear as a day that Trump uses them to force people to the negotiation table. Obviously, negotiated deal may look different. Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around…
>>Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. Some things like electronics - sure, but it's a matter of national security not economy - it doesn't have to make financial sense, it just has to exist so that the country can…
So, you and I are in agreement that for some things it makes sense, right? Both strategically, and economically.