Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a static environment, if a company is having troubles in this terribleeconomy, forcing the employer to pay more money to employees for doing the same level of work, is NOT going to create more wealth for the employer. the employer will need to find a way to balance these higher employee salary costs. Either the employer charges more for the end product, or they cut costs, which might mean layoffs or more part-timers.
Most companies who employ the masses are reporting record profits. They don't need to hire or pay more to do this.
It's a terrible economy for some folk and a great economy for others. People tend to exist in echo chambers and do not realize or care how the other half is doing.
Ever wonder if all those in Cairo had full time jobs, they would not be taking to the streets to protest this side or that? Unemployment is a global crisis. Those nations with the highest employment have the most government juicing it.
Where does government get the wealth from to "juice it?" Does government decide which new technologies, and which private companies should be juiced with free taxpayer subsides and which should not? Or by "juicing it" do you mean government squeezes select businesses like juice from a beet, until they are bled dry?
Most companies who employ the masses are reporting record profits. They don't need to hire or pay more to do this.
It's a terrible economy for some folk and a great economy for others. People tend to exist in echo chambers and do not realize or care how the other half is doing.
When Warren Buffet endorsed Obama, did you even wonder why?
And why are they seeing record profits? Hint, it has something to do with government limiting competition. The two arent a coincidence.
If raising taxes on the 1% will close the gap, then why has it gotten farther away? Has it?
Yes, you like the president dont comprehend that income for the 1% can be delayed, or outright done away with, by transferring it into wealth, thus creating ZERO tax revenues, and more wealth at the top, making those on the bottom poorer, not wealthier..
It is not lost on me that the wealthiest can and do protect their wealth from taxation. Do you favor a wealth tax?
Yes, raise taxes on those NOT PAYING ANYTHING... Thats not the 1%..
The earned income tax credit became a part of the tax code in 1975.
From 1985 to 2006, EITC payments grew from $2.1 billion to $44.4 billion, or by an eye-popping 2,014 percent. Total federal income tax revenues rose by 217 percent over that same period. Similarly, the number of returns claiming the EITC rose from 6.4 million to 23.0 million—an increase of 255 percent—over a period when the total number of federal income tax returns increased by 36 percent.
Do you favor eliminating the earned income tax credit so that the working poor pay their fair share?
Or did you miss that part of their conclusion as well?
When Warren Buffet endorsed Obama, did you even wonder why?
And why are they seeing record profits? Hint, it has something to do with government limiting competition. The two arent a coincidence.
Competition doesn't have anything to do with process redesign or higher productivity levels. When a company redesigns their acct dept and cuts 10 jobs it isn't because the gov is limiting competition. LEAN isn't new by any stretch of the imagination.
Do I favor a wealth tax? No, I favor policies that dont entice people to transfer their income into wealth.
I have always objected to the earned income tax credits EVERYONE should be paying their "fair share" (and I benefit from these credits greatly, just like I benefit from the transfer of income into wealth)
Why should some get a free ride while others have to work and see their taxes being raised to pay for it?
Most companies who employ the masses are reporting record profits. They don't need to hire or pay more to do this.
It's a terrible economy for some folk and a great economy for others. People tend to exist in echo chambers and do not realize or care how the other half is doing.
Who are these companies, and how are they accomplishing this achievement? Are new regs and a weak economy forcing smaller competitors to fail and close up shop? Are the big chain stores sucking up all the smaller stores customers? Who are you rooting for, big Walmart, or Mrs. Brackman's local grocery store? sounds like you are rooting for the big box stores who "employ the masses."
That is how it works sometimes, big businesses can lobby government to enact punitive regulations, which will increase their costs. However, since big business have deep pockets, they can afford to ride out the regulatory storm, while the little guys get crushed. Then the big guys end up owning a larger share of the market, which offsets the new regulatory costs. Who loses in that environment? We do. Government wins, because now they have fewer and fewer businesses to deal with and control.
Big oil would love to see some of the tax depreciations go away, because only the smaller independent oil, mining and gas companies qualify for them.
Competition doesn't have anything to do with process redesign or higher productivity levels. When a company redesigns their acct dept and cuts 10 jobs it isn't because the gov is limiting competition. LEAN isn't new by any stretch of the imagination.
Advancements in technology and productivity levels have been taking place since the beginning of time. Stop pretending its all of a sudden only happening because Obama is President.
Whats comical is if you blame the advancements in productivity, then clearly this means Bush isnt to blame, right?
And thigns like Obamacare are destined to cut their hours down from 39 hours to 29 hours a week, thus MAKING THEM POORER...
There is no need to pay them more when you can hire 2 people to work half the number of hours..
And the left response, they stand here and pretend legislations on business have no impact and government does no damage. Its completely silly or complete stupidity, I cant figure out which at this point because I refuse to think anyone is that dumb.
I don't think in absolutes.
ACA has become a scapegoat for some employers who have historically chosen to operate their business with part time workers. Cutting through the crap in retail and food services, the employers want optimum scheduling flexibility and to avoid paying OT.
There has been a trend towards part time employment going back t the 60's. It dovetails well with how the retail and food services sectors have over time become the largest non public employers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
