interesting question from the debates.

Grr premature ejacul.... I mean post.

Anyway, not fair you paid $20k on $2m(1%) and I pain $10k on $50k(20%)... yeah, but they had to capital invest $1.9 million of the $2 million!

Pre AMT, it was 70% on money not capital invested and 0% on money capital invested. AMT cut that difference in half to 70% 30%.

Then Reaganomics really fucked it up making it 30% or 50%.

Way more capital investing when the difference was 70% then when the difference is 20%... or less even later.

Who fucked up first on fucking up the New Deal tax code???

Liberals and the alternative minimum tax!

If you earn $2 million, but reinvest $1.9 million of it to avoid income tax, good!! Exactly what you want.

But then whiny liberals were like It's not fair you earned $2 million and paid $20k tax (20% on the $100k not capital invested for deductions) and I had to pay

See peeps, I argue against liberals as much as conservatives. What side of the aisle you see me as being on says more about you than me.

I didn't have the opportunity at the time, but in a post about 1960s economy I mentioned unions and I was challenged on them....

Yep, I am not a fan of unions, except collective bargaining for wages. They fuck up if they make it hard to fire dead weight or adjust workforce to changing markets.

They also fucked up employer provided healthcare and retirement. Those should have always been through the government.

I am not a fan of Warren's wealth tax.

If you start a company selling widgets(even virtual), and everyone on the planet is willing to give you $1 of profit to get one, then good for you (you have $7 billion) and good for everyone else (they have $7 billion in value to them). With P/E ratios what they are, your company is probably worth $150 billion... but that is unrealized gain that is only real if you sell stock or the company.

The issue is not the stock value. One issue becomes what you do with that $7 billion money. Do you stick it in bonds, money markets or some other security investment that requires debt be increasing to get the money back into the economy, trapping people in inescapable debt servitude, destabilizing the economy should the debt grow too large? Or do you spend or capital invest the money, effectively teading your widgets for other peoples' widgets.

A final issue is crowding out the competition. Has your new company captured such a huge portion of the market or economy that you can crush competition and opportunity for others? This is the purpose of anti-trust, to fight the formation or break up large companies that crush rather that increase market competition. I think this, rather than wealth tax, is how we should handle Walmart, Amazon, and the like.

ONEFOR----->I believe Bezos and the Waltons' have more than enough billions. Billions they've made while not paying taxes (due to their lobbying) Billions made while underpaying and over working their employees leaving the taxpayer to make up the difference.

The politics of envy combined with the aphrodisiac of unabated power. Where in history has that ever gone wrong? Ohhhhhh wait, this time it will be different huh?

DNLB

"$15 per hour minimum wages? Perfect!

The concept that artificially inflating the direct labor costs by 50% will suddenly enable the people earning minimum wage to increase their spending directly proportional to the "raise" is a fallacy. One immediate effect is that they will now pay taxes on $30 per year instead of $20k per year. Another is that their cost of living is going to increase by the same 50%."

No one said it would be "direct proportional". Sure, they have to pay 7.5% FICA and may get with with 10% or 12% income tax... The bigger hit is likely the loss of medicaid, earned income tax credit, food stamps, section 8 housing and other such government handouts.

So let's say the $15 minimum wage, $7 extra an hour, $15K a year is really only a net increase of $5K in spendable income. Well, then that is still an extra $5K. That is still more money getting spend into the economy.

And, your premise that cost of living increases proportional to increase in the minimum wage is destroyed by a look at history. 1960 to 1968 the minimum wage went from inflation adjusted $8 to inflation adjusted $12 (all time high). Most of those years were we hitting 1% inflation. We were also hitting 6% GDP growth rates in those years. Holding the minimum wage increases below inflation in the 1970s didn't suppress inflation.

Studies from around the world have shown that raising the minimum wage doesn't become a driver of inflation until you get to about 2/3rds of median wage (about $20) so about $15. Much of that is because, as I pointed out above, a fair portion of the increase does not directly translate into additional spendable income, but instead reduces government spending used to keep poor people spending.

If you really want people to get off the government dole, raise the minimum wage!

Many states have now increased the minimum wage well above the federal level, including the very Republican Arizona, which is at $11, heading to $12 next year. Yes, the jumps in minimum wage had had some effect on cost of goods, but not the 30-40% the minimum wage increased. AZ cost of living had been increasing slightly below the national average and now is rising like 0.1% a year above national average... So, maybe 0.2%, but it is hard to separate our housing shortage driving rents from other factors such as minimum wage.

One thing for sure since raising the minimum wage is the AZ state budget is MUCH improved.

As for its effect on unemployment, there was basically no change in the unemployment rate, but a huge jump in the work force. People that were unwilling to work (like stay at home moms where the cost of daycare didn't justify an $8.50 job) were suddenly looking for, and able to find work, at $11 and $12. We can clearly see the pop in the workforce size the quarter the minimum wage goes up. Some have argued that is a switch of people working under the table switching to reported job.. okay, but that still gets them off the dole and paying taxes.

I believe Bezos and the Waltons' have more than enough billions. Billions they've made while not paying taxes (due to their lobbying) Billions made while underpaying and over working their employees leaving the taxpayer to make up the difference. Billions they've made on capital gains while paying less taxes than if taxed as income (Lobbied for this again) Billions made while shorting the local towns and states in taxes. Yes I have absolutely no problem in limiting profits for those who have bought our representatives in govt. for the past 50 years to serve their greed while ruining the economy of the majority.

Lots of misconceptions about poor people here...

ONEFOR----->Simple plan to eliminate the large companies off setting the minimum wage raise....all publicly shared companies are forbidden to raise any prices for the same length of time that it took the minimum wage to have been raised since it's last increase.

LMAO - you just have to love Government Force dictating to public companies how they should run their business and what their profitability "should" be. And you wonder why people are suspicious of Socialist-Democrat policies?

Simple plan to eliminate the large companies off setting the minimum wage raise....all publicly shared companies are forbidden to raise any prices for the same length of time that it took the minimum wage to have been raised since it's last increase. That would mean that there will be no increase in prices by those companies for 10 years as it's been since 2009 that the federal minimum wage has been raised. Bet the cost of living has risen in those same 10 years though.

though there is something to giving raises to poor people. you give me an X % raise, that extra money goes in my bank account or possibly gets spent in the bahamas. give that to the typical poor person, they will spend it on junk or hopefully important things for their family which helps the economy here.

The headline, "SLAVE REGISTERS FROM LONDON Name The Slaves Kamala Harris’ Ancestor Owned" So Kamala Harris owes reparation to the offspring of these SLAVES. KAMALA HARRIS PAY UP A S A P.

"Math like what? Poor people that get a raise spend the raise? That is actually really good for the economy!"

$15 per hour minimum wages? Perfect!

The concept that artificially inflating the direct labor costs by 50% will suddenly enable the people earning minimum wage to increase their spending directly proportional to the "raise" is a fallacy. One immediate effect is that they will now pay taxes on $30 per year instead of $20k per year. Another is that their cost of living is going to increase by the same 50%.

Consider this: How many Rolls Royces or Aston Martins do you see parked at McDonalds or Walmart? You know, the places that will immediately pass on the 50% increase in labor costs to their consumer? I would offer that mostly you see older pickup trucks and mid-size cars, people on the lower income strata. Considering that most of those places are currently developing technology to eliminate many of the minimum wage jobs via automation because they already recognize that their unskilled labor is one of the most expensive components in bringing goods to the marketplace, how will it increase employment? At a time when half of our politicians want open borders to flood the job market with millions more unskilled laborers to compete for the dwindling numbers of jobs? Fucking for virginity and fighting for peace, right?

You don't spend your way to prosperity by inflating costs at the bottom, that only makes poor people pay more taxes and higher costs and furthers the wealth disparity that you are so valiantly fighting against.

"Unfortunately, be have a bit variate choice."

We won't get a viable option until the Democratic Party can't win with its current strategy of pretending to care about the middle class, but really just being a puppet of billionaire campaign donors.

"I agree that neither side is perfect"

Not perfect? The Democratic Party is about 90% the same evil as the Republican Party. It is not like, "Well I'm not going to fuck a 9, because I'm holding out for a 10."

One is a 3-day dead corpse, and the other is 5-day dead corpse, and I'm not fucking either one. Is their a viable 3rd option? Not now, and there won't be as long as people keep fucking these dead corpses. I'm going to do everything I can to bury these corpses and get some living flesh to fuck.

"When people do math that way it makes my eyes burn. This is how seemingly normal working class people spend their way into bankruptcy every day."

Math like what? Poor people that get a raise spend the raise? That is actually really good for the economy!

As for debt, Reaganomics created structural imbalances that drain about $1.5 trillion out of active circulation in the economy each year. The only way to keep the economy running in the face of those drains, is to ensure that at least that much new money is put into the economy (which is done via debt).

Every time people stop borrowing and spending, going into debt, the economy begins to collapse, so we lower interest rates loosen lending standards to get people borrowing and spending again. When people and businesses aren't doing enough new debt generation, the federal government is forced to.

I see stories all the time about how "people can save for retirement if they reduce spending on these things..." Inevitably it is stuff like designer coffee, new clothing and cell phone upgrades.. Look, you can save $2000 a year, which over 50 years at 10% annual growth is $2.5 million!!!!

Yeah, except that $2000 of your spending is someone else's income, and your income is their spending. You cut your spending, their income goes down, so they cut their spending and then your income goes down! It's called recession, and if the spending cuts are too deep, it becomes depression!!!!

This goes to my post no one would bite on.

Trade deficits are so good for a nation's economy that EVERY country should have one! If you can't see the flaw with that statement, you're dumb. If you can't expand it to everyone within the USA economy, you're just as dumb.

Unfortunately, be have a bit variate choice.

I agree that neither side is perfect, but if you are going to take chances, I would rather vote for the side that might be for the workers, rather than the side that is definitely not for the workers.

But that is just me.

People that gave Trump the benefit of the doubt, or people thatbthought, as you do, that both sides are evil, are what gave us Trump.

How is that working out for workers?

When people do math that way it makes my eyes burn. This is how seemingly normal working class people spend their way into bankruptcy every day.

" a business can only pay, say $12. 00 and are forced to pay $15.00 that is a form of SLAVERY. Is the business owner to take money from their children's education fund to pay unqualified people $15.00 when they only produce $12.00 worth of labor?"

Ugh.. the ignorance.

1) You can lay people off. (but time after time, we have seen the opposite happens when the minimum wage is increased... see 2 below).

2) Don't apply microeconomic principles to a macroeconomic situation.

Microeconomics, focused on a single business, doesn't have any feedback loops. Even the nation's largest employer, Walmart, with its 1.5 million employees is 0.7% of the total workforce. Walmart giving its employees a raise has virtually no effect on the amount of money in the average Walmart customer's pockets. A $1 an hour raise, of $1500 a year per employee, multiplied by that 0.7% would be $10 extra a year in the pockets of the average customer. $10 a year per customer is such a small number, that any feedback loop is so small that it can be ignored.

Now, however, if we are talking about increasing the minimum wage, then we're not talking sub-1% of the population. We're talking more like 20-25% of the population seeing upward pressure on their wages, and the poorest so most likely to spend every extra penny they earn. Now that $5 an hour raise, $7500 per employee results in an extra $3000 extra in the pockets of the average Walmart customer.

So in your example, if you used to sell 10 widgets for $10 each and pay 7 hours of labor at $12 (say $100 - $84 = $16 profit. With a microeconomic mindset, you think that if you pay $15 an hour labor is $105 so you lose $5 instead of earning $16. WRONG! You are ignoring the macroeconmic feedback loop that now your customers have more money, so can buy more stuff at a higher price. NOW with the higher minimum wage you sell 20 at $12 for 14 hours at $15 per or $240 - $210 for $30 each.

Look at the states and cities that have been raising their minimum wage well above federal level. A conservative economic dogma would sy we would see rising unemployment in those places. Reality proves the opposite. The states and cities are seeing unemployment lower than national averages and higher workforce participation as people that had dropped out of the workforce come back and look for jobs.

We have had minimum wage for over 80 years now. It has been raised over a dozen times. In about 60% of the cases, unemployment was lower 1 and 2 years later, 20% of the time flat, and 20% of the time higher (but in several of those, other factors such as dot com bust and housing bust, not related to minimum wage were the clear drivers of the unemployment increase).

Reality of the data is very frequently at odds with conservative economic dogma, because conservative economic dogma ignores the very real feedback loops of the macroeconomy.

"Is the business owner to take money from their children's education fund to pay unqualified people $15.00 when they only produce $12.00 worth of labor?"

The business owner will be able to afford the $15 an hour wage when he no longer has to pay for his child's education...had you watched the debates you would have known that.

AZ, "2016 I was the top volunteer for the Bernie campaign in AZ." You admit you are CRAZY. One issue with Bernie, $15.00 minimum wage is a violation of the 13th Amendment Involuntary servitude. If a business can only pay, say $12. 00 and are forced to pay $15.00 that is a form of SLAVERY. Is the business owner to take money from their children's education fund to pay unqualified people $15.00 when they only produce $12.00 worth of labor?

Explains a lot? If you have been paying attention, all my posts in the political board are all economic and the evils of staying the course of Reaganomics.

Even the ones about politicians all being liars I straight up said I didn't vote for Hillary because she was a lying sack of shit, pretending she was going to fight for the middle class, but really a champion of the far cat campaign donors.

Sheesh, not like I'm trying to disguise myself here.

Well, that explains a lot...

See, I don't see actively participating in the destruction of the middle class as "good".

I see the choices as horrid, more horrid or political revolution.

2016 I was the top volunteer for the Bernie campaign in AZ.

2020 Bernie has gone too much identity politics, so I have switched to Warren.

It is the economy stupid, and both Democrats and Republicans are destroying it.

LOL.

So you will make the perfect the enemy of the good.

You sound like a Bernie supporter.

"Unilaterally disarm and not take money from the moneyed class?"

There is no point winning if the only way to win is to be an active participant in the destruction of the Middle Class.

The Clinton's took the progressive agenda, and scratched off everything that might cost them campaign contributions... what was left was don't ask don't tell and pro abortion supreme court judges.

In my point of view, that is total surrender. Even if we "win", we lose.

So, Republicans win, middle class is doomed to collapse and Democrats win, middle class is doomed to collapse.

I am going to remain "none of the above" until there is a candidate that is fighting against instead of for middle class destruction.