Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2016, 12:25 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,473,071 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
No kidding. Who would vote for a 10% pay cut to pay for this? Even taking out what I currently pay for health care I'd be taking a big pay cut. Of course liberals are for it, they always think what someone else earns is only being held under government can spend it on someone else.

Math fail!



10% payroll tax = 6.6666 percent on employer plus 3.3333 percent on employee.

Since wages of minimum wage workers cannot be cut, these workers will not experience any direct wage reduction, therefore no 10% wage cut is likely for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2016, 01:12 PM
 
11,411 posts, read 7,812,838 times
Reputation: 21923
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Math fail!



10% payroll tax = 6.6666 percent on employer plus 3.3333 percent on employee.

Since wages of minimum wage workers cannot be cut, these workers will not experience any direct wage reduction, therefore no 10% wage cut is likely for them.
There would be an increase tax of 6.6666 percent of everyone's wages for the employer and a 3.3333 percent tax increase for all employees. Added together that's a 10% tax increase shared by both sides.

Do you really believe that employers won't take that into consideration when making employment offers or raising wages? And while minimum wage cannot be cut, every minimum wage worker will take home 3.3333 less in their paychecks than they do today.

Last edited by UNC4Me; 10-27-2016 at 01:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 02:06 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,473,071 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
There would be an increase tax of 6.6666 percent of everyone's wages for the employer and a 3.3333 percent tax increase for all employees. Added together that's a 10% tax increase shared by both sides.

Do you really believe that employers won't take that into consideration when making employment offers or raising wages? And while minimum wage cannot be cut, every minimum wage worker will take home 3.3333 less in their paychecks than they do today.

Please explain how a minimum wage employee would see more than a 3.3333% reduction in net wages. For some employees that 3.3333 percent would be worth it, for others not worth it. But they won't lose 10 percent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,713,235 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
Why would it not be a topic of discussion?

It is a politically controversial topic and following the outcome of such things is a decent and informative way to keep abreast of which way the political "wind" is blowing in our country.
If it worthy of discussion, then why was there no statement or opinion included in the OP?
Are you pro or con?

Eligible to vote for this measure?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 02:33 PM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,293,037 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Just the anchor babies, probably.
Anchor babies need a mom and dad and they need them healthy so yes they should be covered as well.

What kind of person just lets people die in the streets?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 02:56 PM
 
3,366 posts, read 1,607,603 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
If it worthy of discussion, then why was there no statement or opinion included in the OP?
Are you pro or con?

Eligible to vote for this measure?
I have to be pro or con to discuss something? I always thought the discussion led to the opinion, not the other way around.
I do not live in Colorado, so I doubt I'll be voting on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 02:59 PM
 
4,279 posts, read 1,905,917 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih2puo View Post
Anchor babies need a mom and dad and they need them healthy so yes they should be covered as well.

What kind of person just lets people die in the streets?
I don't know, ask Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 02:59 PM
 
11,411 posts, read 7,812,838 times
Reputation: 21923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
There would be an increase tax of 6.6666 percent of everyone's wages for the employer and a 3.3333 percent tax increase for all employees. Added together that's a 10% tax increase shared by both sides.

Do you really believe that employers won't take that into consideration when making employment offers or raising wages? And while minimum wage cannot be cut, every minimum wage worker will take home 3.3333 less in their paychecks than they do today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Please explain how a minimum wage employee would see more than a 3.3333% reduction in net wages. For some employees that 3.3333 percent would be worth it, for others not worth it. But they won't lose 10 percent.

Try reading my post again. I specifically said they would take home 3.3333 percent less due to the part of the new tax charged to employees. No where did I say they would lose 10% although I did say that would be the total shared by both sides. Which it would be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top