Politics

[Big_Easy]

Because it fails basic economics, if they pay more then their costs go up, then they charge more for services, so then the employees who are making more now have to pay more for those services.

The fallacy in your argument is that it is not a 1:1 increase in labor costs to overall goods and services costs. I've already debunked this in an earlier post about corporate labor costs using McDonalds as an example. If a corporate owned store has labor costs of 23%, then if you double the wages and benefits of every employee there, the total expenses don't double for the company, they go up 23%. The most your happy meal should increase is 23%. So a 100% increase in their wages = a 23% increase in the end products price to the consumer. Or a 0.23:1 ratio. And that's assuming the Golden Arches doesn't absorb any of that increased cost by reducing their profit margins. Which they might.

The cost of a BigMac in Denmark is cheaper than the USA, but the starting wage for a burger flipper in Denmark is $21/hour, versus $13/hour in the United States. A danish burger flipper gets 50% more rate, but the product costs less. By your logic the cost of a BigMac in Denmark should cost almost $12, but it doesn't.

Edit:
And then you have to realize that for workers making less than $15/hour, that's only 13% of the workers, and for workers making under $17/hour, that's 23% of workers. So lets say we double labor costs for the bottom 13% of workers (we wouldn't) but assume worst case scenario for the oligarchs here. 23% labor costs x 13% workers is 3% country-wide. A one time 3% national increase in the total labor costs for goods and services produced by all of these workers, spread out over the total economy, assuming no company absorbs the increase from their profits. And yet their wages and benefits have doubled, so they have more spending money, and the gov finally gets to take a share.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Sounds an awful lot like big_sleezy is mad his counterparts in Denmark get more for flipping burgers than he does…

 

[LivingTheDream]

I've already debunked this in an earlier post about corporate labor costs using McDonalds as an example. If a corporate owned store has labor costs of 23%, then if you double the wages and benefits of every employee there, the total expenses don't double for the company, they go up 23%.

You didn't debunk it, your math is wrong because you never have ran a business.

For simple math, if a cheeseburger costs 10 dollars, and their costs associated with that burger is 2.30 for labor then it goes to 4.60, then the company is also paying an additional 20 to 30% on that 2.30 increase in social security taxes (employer matching) and fringe benefits, so more like 3.00 dollars, so now the cheeseburger is now 13 dollars (remember you are basing this on percentages). The employee is actually losing ground based on real dollars.

Not to mention that labor costs associated in the McDonalds example include a lot of part time, or hourly workers that you are now pushing benefits for dont equate into the actual paycheck but do equal an added cost to the employer, so now the costs of the good go up but not actual wage growth.

Plus taxes and social security are withheld from that new 2.30, so the employees gets 1.70 to 1.80 increase.

Plus Obamacare has made health care cost premiums go up, and you can argue about this all you want, but as someone who has helped negotiate rates for a company, I can tell you they have gone up. So even more of a squeeze.

So simple question how does a company operate if its costs go up but its prices don't? What was you said about making a rock bleed.

 

[Scott CWO]

Well first of all it's more like 50% of Americans that don't pay federal income tax. I would love for them to pay income tax. But once again the math doesn't work out. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone. Here's a thought, what if large corporations paid their employees more money, and from this increase in wages and benefits, we could then tax them. The people would have more money to spend, and the gov would collect more in tax revenues.

I should also point out that Trumps Tariffs are a tax, and that people of all income levels pay those. It's one of the things I like most about Donald Trump. How easy it was for him to convince Republican voters to abandon their long held beliefs against tax increases, and how quickly they begged Trump to increase their taxes.

If you don't like every adult getting one equal vote, then I suggest you propose a constitutional amendment to change that based upon how much taxes each citizens pays.


I'm not sure winning the Ovarian lottery = more financially successful than me. Read the article, it's worth 5 minutes of your time to read the Oracle of Omaha's sage advice. Besides, we're already confirmed that 83% of the uber rich were born into some success. Congrats to the other 17%. Perhaps we can modify my tax plan to accommodate and recognize their success.

Warren Buffett on the Ovarian Lottery - Conversable Economist

Warren Buffett used to talk from time to time about the implications of what he called "the ovarian lottery"--the random accident of why you were born with one time, place, and identity rather than another. It's not a new idea. Some of you will know it as a version of what the philosopher John Rawls

conversableeconomist.com

Significant wage increases by the evil corporations just causes the prices of goods and services to increase which then negates the wage increases. Do the math.

 

[Altitude sickness]

The fallacy in your argument is that it is not a 1:1 increase in labor costs to overall goods and services costs. I've already debunked this in an earlier post about corporate labor costs using McDonalds as an example. If a corporate owned store has labor costs of 23%, then if you double the wages and benefits of every employee there, the total expenses don't double for the company, they go up 23%. The most your happy meal should increase is 23%. So a 100% increase in their wages = a 23% increase in the end products price to the consumer. Or a 0.23:1 ratio. And that's assuming the Golden Arches doesn't absorb any of that increased cost by reducing their profit margins. Which they might.

The cost of a BigMac in Denmark is cheaper than the USA, but the starting wage for a burger flipper in Denmark is $21/hour, versus $13/hour in the United States. A danish burger flipper gets 50% more rate, but the product costs less. By your logic the cost of a BigMac in Denmark should cost almost $12, but it doesn't.

Edit:
And then you have to realize that for workers making less than $15/hour, that's only 13% of the workers, and for workers making under $17/hour, that's 23% of workers. So lets say we double labor costs for the bottom 13% of workers (we wouldn't) but assume worst case scenario for the oligarchs here. 23% labor costs x 13% workers is 3% country-wide. A one time 3% national increase in the total labor costs for goods and services produced by all of these workers, spread out over the total economy, assuming no company absorbs the increase from their profits. And yet their wages and benefits have doubled, so they have more spending money, and the gov finally gets to take a share.

It’s clear you’ve never been in any sort of business management.

Employee wage or salary is sometimes the least of the total a company pays out for each employee or to the government overall.

If the employees worked for pay only. If they didn’t also receive health care. If the employer wasn’t required to pay for employees that do not generate revenue IE: legal staff, safety professionals, HR, Finance, mechanics etc etc.

So in your world, the employees eat up to 60-70% not 23%. and the guy putting it all on a line. Risking bankruptcy gets 5%

Let me help with your numbers. You were close for McDonald’s. But many pay much more of a percentage.

EBITDA vs. Net Income: Understand the Key Differences

EBITDA vs. Net Income: Understand key differences, formulas, and use cases in financial analysis and valuation. Learn strengths and limitations of each metric.

corporatefinanceinstitute.com

 

[WAB]

Says the crybaby that's too chicken to debate me himself.

I don’t feed trolls. I participate in this forum to share knowledge gained from life experience and learn from others who do the same. You do neither. You are a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[mdwest]

 

[Killingtime]

I’m Canadian I’ve made no secret about it and also told you personally that on multiple occasions.

However I think your actually onto somthing with your constitutional amendment, equal taxation for equal representation. Have a set income tax rate as “standard” if you pay no federal income tax you get no vote if you pay double the income tax rate you get two votes. I would also suggest a guaranteed right to vote for anyone with military service as they have secured their right to a vote through self sacrifice to their country.

Not intending to intrude but I like your idea. Originally you had to be a land owner to vote in America. Ive read they viewed land owners from a position of stability and responsibility and that made them the perfect guardians of the future of the colony.
I’m not advocating going back to that but I do agree that having some skin in the game would probably be better for the nation.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Not intending to intrude but I like your idea. Originally you had to be a land owner to vote in America. Ive read they viewed land owners from a position of stability and responsibility and that made them the perfect guardians of the future of the colony.
I’m not advocating going back to that but I do agree that having some skin in the game would probably be better for the nation.

There is a long history of banking, bank loans and landowner taxation. Started by Scottish banking founder John Law.

That’s why homeownership is so heavily pushed in America. Partially so you have a stake in the game. It makes you a citizen of your local, state and federal communities.

You’re less likely to want to raise taxes. And more likely to stay in line and play the game.

And your less likely to revolt

 

[Altitude sickness]

4.3K views · 59 reactions | EXCLUSIVE: Unseen footage of Abdul El-Sayed and Hasan Piker vacationing together at Mackinac island. | Slopland

EXCLUSIVE: Unseen footage of Abdul El-Sayed and Hasan Piker vacationing together at Mackinac island.

www.facebook.com

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Not intending to intrude but I like your idea. Originally you had to be a land owner to vote in America. Ive read they viewed land owners from a position of stability and responsibility and that made them the perfect guardians of the future of the colony.
I’m not advocating going back to that but I do agree that having some skin in the game would probably be better for the nation.

I actually think landownership/voting has merit on the provincial/state level. Federally I would probably go based on income tax contributions and or military service. But you’ve got to remember I don’t have big_sleezys liberal arts degree so obviously im not educated enough to realize communism is the only fair answer.

 

[Brent in Az]

Brent you are describing yourself in your post. If you guys don't want me to argue with you, then stop insulting me and actually engage in a debate, if you can...I actually enjoy debunking Republican nonsense. Debating far-right drones spouting Trump talking points is how I decompress after a long day at work. I find it funny that so many of you are not capable of defending your positions, and instead rely on insults and emotional based arguments instead. Although there are a few on here that make the occasional effort to truly debate.

I have no idea who Frostbite is, but the MOD on here has indicated that I am playing the game within the rules of the forum so.....play ball!

You are an attention seeking troll, just like Frostbite was.
You both have the same sickness.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I actually don’t believe that we should exclude non-land owners or taxpayers from voting.

But I also don’t believe someone that contributes very little to society and pays nothing should be so boisterous telling everyone else to pay more. Or that they don’t pay enough.

As Jack Nicholson said; I’d rather you just said thank you.

 

[PARA45]

Another keyboard Ninja. Strong and brave while living in mom’s baseman, hiding under her skirt and the pc screen. I’d like to see this fool insult in person some of the members on here.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Example

Family of five

Mother=financially contributes
Father=financially contributes
Child one= dependent
Child two= dependent
Child three= dependent

Who ultimately decides what the new car is going to be ? Mathematically the children have the majority of the vote yet they have contributed nothing to the expense. If family finances are controlled by those who contribute and not majority then why shouldn’t it scale up?

Eighteen rotations around the sun seems like an arbitrary way to decide who gets a say in the direction of a country.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Big easy is spouting the John Lennon (Imagine philosophy). As if half the people could pull off the utopia and half don’t want it.

Reality is half live in a fantasy land and half know there is no such thing as that utopia.

All that said is to explain his national debt philosophy.

It’s not that big easy is wrong. Of course the national debt is out of control. No one will touch entitlements a two year-old understands that but unfortunately, a two year-old does not understand that more taxes does not translate to bringing down national debt. More taxes translates to more spending.

When I operated large budgets and was responsible for them under Sarbanes-Oxley. When a leader came to me for more money, I didn’t simply hand it over. I asked why are they out of money and what happened to their budget? We say in weekly meetings going line by line where every nickel went, if they couldn’t explain it, they were expected to find that out for next week‘s meeting.

Many of us taxpayers feel the same way. Until you get your budget under control and show me where the last piece of money I gave you went. I’ll be damned if I’m giving you more.

It’s not as simple as we don’t care about the national debt, but we also care about the bloated government under Democrats and Republicans alike.

 

[WAB]

I actually think landownership/voting has merit on the provincial/state level. Federally I would probably go based on income tax contributions and or military service. But you’ve got to remember I don’t have big_sleezys liberal arts degree so obviously im not educated enough to realize communism is the only fair answer.

If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t land ownership a requirement to vote in most States in the US when it was founded?

 

[Altitude sickness]

I think the voting was initially rooted in the ideas from the Godfather of modern banking

Scottish economist John Law proposed a land bank to issue paper money backed by real estate. While historical land ownership tied directly into 18th-century voting rights and tax systems, Law’s specific focus was using property values to expand the money supply rather than altering political franchise. [1, 2, 3, 4]

John Law’s Banking Concepts

• • Paper Money: Argued money represents a value for trade, not just metal.
  • Land Bank Proposal: Presented a plan to the Scottish Parliament in 1705 to issue notes backed by land value.
  • Rejection & France: Scotland rejected his plan; he later implemented similar central banking and paper currency ideas through the Encyclopædia Britannica framework in 18th-century France. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Land Ownership, Voting, and Taxation

• • Voting Qualification: Parliamentary voting rights in 18th-century Britain required owning a specific minimum value of freehold property (the 40-shilling freehold). [1]
  • Tax Basis: Public taxation heavily relied on land assessments (the land tax), making property ownership the primary fiscal anchor for the state. [1, 2]
  • Law’s View: Believed fixed land assets offered a stable collateral baseline to prevent currency depreciation compared to volatile silver or gold. [1]

Would you like to explore how John Law's Mississippi Bubble

 

[Altitude sickness]

https://people.bu.edu/chamley/Ec565/Velde-johnlaw9.pdf

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t land ownership a requirement to vote in most States in the US when it was founded?

Most likely but I’m not that versed in colonial practices, I know to vote in the original house of assembly in Nova Scotia you had to have a freehold with an income of at least 40 shillings annually.