Start of post Reminder: I'm a stupid liberal that loves giving money to everyone. If that offends you stop reading now.
Zemaj, do you really believe this? Lets focus in on this line: So less "No money for the homeless" and more "No corporate bailouts"
The most recent blatant contrary point to this is the Covid-19 CARES act, it was a huge $2.2 Trillion dollar legislation. Part of this legislation was obviously direct payments to the people. This made up only $300 billion of the $2.2 trillion. $500 billion alone was designated specifically as loans to corporations, $208 billion of which were to major corporations, is this not bailing out corporations? A very similar thing happened with the 2009 stimulus package that bailed out the banking industry.
Lets move back a couple years before the CARES act though, tax reform was released in 2017. This SLASHED the corporate rate from 35% to 21%, nearly in half. Did you happen to see an increase in your pay when they reduced the corporate rate? Because I sure as hell didn't, that all went directly into the bottom line. "But Pyro, they reduced taxes for individuals too!" Yeah, well lucky me I work in taxes so I know the true details of this. They reduced the top income tax bracket from 39.6% to 37%. Nice right? But unfortunately that doesn't impact you unless you make over $500k a year, so that change definitely wasn't meant for you and me. There are also various other provisions in the tax reform, but I want to highlight the main points, 1. the highest dollar value of the tax breaks benefited those people making over $500k a year (the wealthy and business executives), 2. the corporate tax rate reduction is PERMANENT, and 3. most of the individual tax provisions that did help the common person (you and me) sunset, as in they expire and they go back to what they were in 2025. Does this sound like No corporate bailouts to you?
I wouldn't say 'stupid'. 'Naive' and 'misguided', possibly, but certainly not anything implying you are deficient in some way. If I thought that, of anyone here, I wouldn't waste my time posting/responding. I'd like to think the same applies to everyone else here assembled as well, though it sometimes looks like it may not, in fact. This disturbs me far more than hearing ideologies I do not relate to or personally believe, I assure you.
Let me start by introducing you to my friend, the parenthetical statement. It's a, usually simple, statement that is placed within parentheses, commonly used to make a clarifying point that is frequently, but not always, not directly related to the rest of the text.
Example:
(this really only applies to citizens, in politicians 'conservative' really means nothing, if not the opposite)
I would have assumed that a tax professional would be more aware of this particular, as tax documents tend to be absolutely festooned with them, in my experience.
So, to address your points:
Covid-19 CARES Act - what conservative (even in the ridiculously loose meaning that applies to politicians) co-authored or sponsored that atrocity, exactly? I actually had hopes that Donny-boy would do something positive on his way out and do a slash-and-burn-style line-item veto through the damn thing, for spite, probably, but helping We, the People, out considerably as a consequence. Unfortunately, it was like a microcosm of his entire presidency; he comes out, says he will fight it, says some good things, says more bad things, and in the end totally capitulates, signs it, and gives his opponents pretty much everything they wanted, and We, the People, get the shaft.
2009 stimulus - ah yes, when that notoriously conservative monster Barack Obama was enjoying the height of his conservative-saturated House and Senate, right? Uh, no... not even close to it. I'm fairly positive that at that time, it was a liberal-laden House and Senate, and also that of the many things that could and have been laid at Obama's feet, being a conservative was never close to being one of them.
2017 tax reforms - so you are surprised that billionaire asshat gave himself and all his friends and cronies an enormous cut, hiding it behind a measly cut for actual citizens? I saw that coming when I voted for him, as much as I hate to admit it (I do feel justified in that choice, however, as my reasoning was if Clinton got the office, we'd be at very least in another arms-race standoff, ala 1970s-80s Cold War, if not full-on actual war, which is pretty much what would have happened, had she, as confirmed by both Russian and N. Korean despots). That we got anything, no matter how insignificant or short-lived is actually kind of astounding.
Pretty picture. If I read that correctly, it pretty much says that since Bill Clinton was halfway through his first term, probably much longer, no politician, or the bills/initives they have passed/shoved through, has done much of anything to affect the overall hyper-inflation of the costs of things citizens need most, correct? Not even the Affordable Health Care Act, and the big, fat, jack-all it did, except to add to an already considerable tax-burden on those who needed help the most? For the record, I classify the requirement of all citizens to have health insurance as a tax, as it is an expense one must pay, under threat of fines or imprisonment, for a dubious benefit one may not ever actually utilize... sounds like taxes to me. I, personally, would have much preferred if they would have just rammed socialized healthcare on through, like they could have. Then your theoretical buddy wouldn't have had to either pay directly out of his paycheck for insurance, or go through a ridiculously bureaucratic process to get essentially the same thing, at essentially the same cost, through a government agency. End cost for citizens would have been about 1.7% more, iirc, and then every citizen, regardless of income or lack thereof, would have gotten the actual, tangible benefit as well.
We can see here that the price of some things have gone down and the price of some things have gone up, expected. Now lets say I have my fun idiot friend who works a minimum wage job and makes $7.15 an hour. As noted above minimum wage hasn't been adjusted in years so that fun line showing increase in wages doesn't apply to my idiot friend.
@zemaj and
@Glurin. Are you both saying my idiot friend who has been doing the same job for a while now, deserves to be able to afford 25% less food and housing because **** him and instead of working 60 hours a week he should work 80 hours a week to maintain his standard of living? Because that sounds exactly like what you are saying. Or maybe he should go to college and better himself instead, oh wait, shit, that line on the graph has exploded like a rocket, guess he'll just have to take out a shit ton of debt to afford it. Makes sense to me under the logic you are presenting.
I'm not saying everyone should be paid a million bucks. I'm saying it should be reasonable that everyone should be paid a reasonable wage regardless of the work they do. Even if every single person in the united states became college educated, guess what, these minimum wage jobs would still exist, and still need to be done. If a business can't survive on paying their employees fair wages than the business is not a successful business.
Let's refer to a simple study for a minute here:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...ould-raise-prices-by-4-study-finds-2015-07-28
Such outcry of raising the minimum wage ends up in a net 4% increase to the cost of the product. 4%! OH GOD HOW WILL I EVER SURVIVE HAVING TO PAY 4% MORE FOR MY LARGE FRY SO THAT SOMEONE ELSE COULD AFFORD TO FUCKING LIVE. Raising the minimum wage for these people would give them a 107% increase in wages, 107%! not 1.07%, 107%. I think I can deal with paying 4% more if someone else can have a better life. And guess what, them having more money means they are going to spend more money, and magic, the economy grows because of it.
As for your hypothetical friend and minimum wage, I already addressed this in the post of mine you quoted. Even proposed a modest solution that would address the actual issue without causing even more inflation. I'll be vainglorious and quote myself again:
To address your 'point': economics 101.
If you increase the amount employers have to pay thier employees, without addressing other, more directly pertinent issues first, it isn't the employers that pay that difference, it's the consumers. So now, consumers paying more for products will raise the cost of thier product/service (like, for example, housing), increasing the amount the workers you were trying to help have to pay out, in addition to having to pay more for the goods they need to fulfill thier needs (for example, food and clothing), and so on. In the end, all you have done is actually EXPAND the lower class, SHRUNK, the middle class, and MINUTELY increased the upper class (and, interestingly enough, this increase usually includes the lawmakers and lobbyists who push these concepts). How about instead we promote a law that states that no employee of a company can be paid more than 500x what the lowest paid employee is paid? That would do far more for most low-income workers than raising the minimum wage, while not being an essential death-sentence to small businesses.
If you don't go through and fix the loopholes first, just jack the numbers up without regard for consequences, it ends up making things in fact much worse. Yeah, 4% doesn't sound like much when you apply it to mammoth portions of grease-soaked potatoes, but be honest now and apply it to EVERYTHING EVERYONE PURCHASES, EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A PURCHASE. Also be honest and admit that it wouldn't have stopped at 4% because greedy assholes would have added an additional 1-2% (at least) to cover 'additional costs incurred'. +107% of a pittance still doesn't amount to much, especially considering he would be paying all those 4%s just like the rest of us, and those other increases, like the increase to housing the landlords would charge to keep thier standard of living at the same level, as well. I would have thought someone who works in taxes knows how that goes, but I guess not. I'd also have thought my proposal would have made one such consider other alternatives, but I suppose you were in too much of a hurry to "prove me wrong" & promote your ideology to consider the validity of my points to any degree.
I'm pretty sure there is more than enough of this pie for EVERYONE to make a living-wage, without purposely gutting any current or potential small businesses, which do far more for the economy than bloated corporate giants do. We just need to limit how far these bloated mega-corporations and the greedy ones that sit in boardrooms for them can bleed us all. I believe in the entrepreneurial drive, and that people should be allowed to try bettering themselves and thier position if they feel they can. As such, I'd advise your theoretical friend to attend a trade school/technical college, which are far less costly than traditional colleges, and have nearly as many scholarships and subsidized loans available. I did, after wasting a bunch of time and money at a traditional college, only to find out that the passion I studied for has practically zero real job availability, and that I really suck at riding a desk for 9+ hours a day. Now, I instead get to design and make the coolest shit every day, using my hands as well as my mind to harness machines to do my bidding, and make much better money at it than riding that desk would have netted me had I stuck at it this entire time. Hell, give me a few more years without the continuous stifling of such and I might just go for broke and see about opening my very own fabrication/machine shop, then hire some twenty-something kid just like I was, and pay him the wages he needs to make it better for himself and his family, possibly even sparking that entrepreneurial drive, so he can do it as well. Cycle continues. In the meantime, I bet I could find a job for your friend and a few others as well, and not ever pay them minimum wage, because most people like me know that is just a crapchute, know that taking care of your employees you know by name makes them want to take care of your business, and don't want to perpetuate the vicious cycle... that's Mr. Billionaire-asshat-corporate-boardsitters job, and frankly, where these problems really stem from along with the political creatures they retain in thier employ to push through legislation that ensures they don't have to worry about a small business getting any of that pie.
Wow, that got pretty far afield, didn't it? My bad, I'll try to reel it back in...
Point is, raising the minimum wage would make all that impossible, or at least absurdly unlikely, and is as short-sighted as, say, eliminating half the population to increase the availability of raw materials. Why would anyone ever try to do better if they can earn the same amount just skating by, stocking shelves and flipping burgers? They wouldn't, and the economy would fall slave to the 1%, much as we are already seeing happen. Should less skilled or less ambitious people be able to earn a living wage? Of course and absolutely, but skills and ambition should pay dividends, not be regulated to unnecessary by making them unprofitable by removing those steps inbetween.
As I said, economics 101.
(I apologize for the formatting of this post not being up to my usual standards, forum software fought me every step of the way, and this was best I could do under circumstances)
