• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would raising the minimum wage actually create more jobs?

So how much would you take from the 1% - which is, by the way, 3.1 or 3.2 million people? I'm curious. For when you take a larger sum of their wealth and its "not enough" to feed those demanding a hand out - what then? Top 2% Top 5%? Its time to stop taking from one to give to another.

I don't support robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

I'm actually totally against means tested welfare. However I do support shifting the tax burden away from incomes that are within the norm, and onto those who's consumption or lifestyles would not be effected by paying a larger portion of our total tax burden. this doesn't neccesarally mean a higher tax rate on earned income for anyone (not even the rich). Under the "imagep plan" the vast majority of us would pay less in taxes.
 
* Minimum wage increases are good for the economy because the poor will save the extra money.

* Minimum wage increases are good for the economy because the poor will spend the extra money.

You can't have both arguments. Whichever one you take is undermined by the other and yet you don't see any reason to refute either argument.

I think it's obvious that you don't really know or care what raising minimum wage will REALLY do. You just want it to happen and any argument that supports it is OK with you. In other words, the end justifies the means and the arguments can be completely dishonest or false because they're just rationalizations for getting what you want.

Please show me where I have ever argued that the poor would save all the extra money they earn. I'm not responsible for the opinions of other people on the left. I don't dissect your arguments and find areas where other people on the right would disagree with you, and then demand that you explain the contradiction.
 
I'm actually totally against means tested welfare. However I do support shifting the tax burden away from incomes that are within the norm, and onto those who's consumption or lifestyles would not be effected by paying a larger portion of our total tax burden.

Are you suggesting we should tax the crap out of the super poor because it wouldn't their tiny consumption or lousy lifestyles? :)
 
Another zombie left wing meme that just won't die.
As if the rich don't spned TONS of money. ( Guess you haven't ever watched Lifestyles of the Rich and famous? }
As if the rich don't ever invest their money in things that lead to economic growth.The rich most assurredly DO NOT 'sit on their money'. That is generally why they are rich

The rich spend a much lower percent of their income than the non-rich do.

Much of the "investment" that the rich make isn't productive investment, it's simply pouring more money into the ponzi-scheme that we call the "stock market", resulting in higher and higher stock valuations. When we purchase shares of stocks, that money doesn't typically go to the company to use for business expansion, it simply repays early investors. The obvious exception is if it is a true startup, but these days most IPOs aren't even startup companies. The days of funding new businesses through an IPO have been long over.
 
I don't support robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

I'm actually totally against means tested welfare. However I do support shifting the tax burden away from incomes that are within the norm, and onto those who's consumption or lifestyles would not be effected by paying a larger portion of our total tax burden. this doesn't neccesarally mean a higher tax rate on earned income for anyone (not even the rich). Under the "imagep plan" the vast majority of us would pay less in taxes.

And the imagep plan would be very attractive to people who think it is OK to vote yourself into other peoples' pockets. I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK. In fact, the founding fathers had a big problem with that, too. That's why we have a republic and rule of law. The vast majority of us paying less in taxes by shifting our own share of the burden to the minority is wrong and I really HATE that mentality.

I think we're going to have to raise taxes when the economy gets sorted out and I think the rich may be the only segment that can afford it but we should never take the skin out of the game for any citizen. We all need to contribute and there's something fundamentally wrong about voting to give to ourselves at the expense of the minority and the fact that the minority are "the rich" doesn't mean there should be an exception in their case.
 
Yeah we've done that. Massively. The rich pay almost all the federal tax bill . So how's it working out?

Thats not true. the 1% pay about 20% of our income taxes, but income taxes are less than 50% of our total tax revenue. The bottom 99% pay the vast majority of our local, state, and federal taxes.
 
I guess people forget what minimum wage is suppose to be.
it is the lowest pay for the least skilled job.

If you want a living wage like some of these people want you to have then you have to go out and do something in order to get it.
that requires and education, training or certification of some kind.

that will allow you to earn a minimum wage. expecting 15 dollars for no skill and no education is obsurd and insulting to professionals.

No more so than making up the difference via gov't "safety net" programs - the current reality. The left looks at it as a way to give "fair" income to folks via gov't mandate, not as a way to increase actual output. Rest assured the any raise in the MW will have a corresponding increase in the federal poverty level - meaning that those that do not earn "enough" will still be paid more for the same amount of output. Raising the MW is a way to shift costs from gov't handouts to private industry handouts via mandates.
 
You know.... you might have a point.... except that you lefties never contradict each other. You just thank each other for covering both sides of every argument.

It's pretty much the same with you righties.

Thats why I am neither. I pretty much disagree with all your partisan hacks.
 
Does it or does is not also remove credibility from the right?

So you've entirely abandoned your own argument in the hopes of pinning me down to "the Right"?

If any "ideological group" touts itself as being a tent full of contradictory ideas, then it lacks credibility. Your slavish devotion to a one-dimensional "left/right" dichotomy notwithstanding.
 
So you believe the left is not credible because they don't march in unison like the right does, but Papa Bull seems to think that it is actually the opposite, and that the left is not credible because all we do is agree with each other and compliment our nonsensical arguments. Which is it?

Amazing isn't it?

Thats why I don't chose to join a "club". I enjoy being out to think freely, without being accused of being a traitor to my party.
 
I guess people forget what minimum wage is suppose to be.
it is the lowest pay for the least skilled job.

If you want a living wage like some of these people want you to have then you have to go out and do something in order to get it.
that requires and education, training or certification of some kind.

that will allow you to earn a minimum wage. expecting 15 dollars for no skill and no education is obsurd and insulting to professionals.

While all that may be correct, it still establishes a floor income, from which all other incomes are positioned on.

Around the world, countries that have higher wage floors also have overall higher standards of living, lower unemployment, less poverty, and a modest inflation rate. And countries that have low wage floors have very low standards of living, hither unemployment, and more poverty. You don't see a trend?
 
I think people who believe that simply raising the minimum wage will solve something are the same ones who think you can spend your way out of debt using borrowed money!

Yet it seems to work so well in countries that have better economies that ours. Hmm.
 
Yet it seems to work so well in countries that have better economies that ours. Hmm.

And you attribute their better economies simply to the higher minimum wage? Gee then lets raise it to $100/hour and let the economy take off like a bat out of hell!
 
Yeah, but at least we can put the kabosh on what minimum wage should be if we just ice it by indexing it to inflation. I think it would actually be good for the economy if we did that because it wouldn't be a sword hanging over the heads of business owners anymore. They'd be able to plan better and with a greater sense of security knowing that some nitwit libs aren't going to jack up the minimum wage 20%, 30% or some other arbitrary percentage on them in a single year.
The minimum wage was first issued to hurt a certain class. Williams: Minimum wage has racist origin | Amarillo Globe-News

This explains why it becomes a cyclical issue because of a bad idea. Williams: Minimum wage has racist origin | Amarillo Globe-News

To be honest, potential employees should be able to negotiate wages they think will favor them in obtaining a position, and we would see cost decreases across the board as a response by the market, just striking the MW from the books would solve many problems by itself.
 
So you've entirely abandoned your own argument in the hopes of pinning me down to "the Right"?

If any "ideological group" touts itself as being a tent full of contradictory ideas, then it lacks credibility. Your slavish devotion to a one-dimensional "left/right" dichotomy notwithstanding.


Answer my question? People on the right do not agree on everything. Do they, like the left, also lose credibility because of that? Yes or no? I never said the left was a "tent full of contradictory ideas" but instead that not everybody on the left agrees on every detail of everything the left stands for. Most people on the left agree on most things, but not all.
 
Are you suggesting we should tax the crap out of the super poor because it wouldn't their tiny consumption or lousy lifestyles? :)

Obviously taxing the crap out of the poor would result in them living an even worse lifestyle, and probably all going even more on the public dole, or resorting to crime, or just being happy living in the park in a cardboard box.

Shifting the tax burden more towards the uber rich is what I was refering to. But I think you realize that already and were just being cheeky with your response.
 
Answer my question? People on the right do not agree on everything. Do they, like the left, also lose credibility because of that? Yes or no?

Do they tout themselves as being a tent full of contradictory ideas? If so, then yes. This still does not absolve YOU of anything YOU said. You're just trying to defeat something I did NOT say.


I never said the left was a "tent full of contradictory ideas" but instead that not everybody on the left agrees on every detail of everything the left stands for. Most people on the left agree on most things, but not all.

Oh, what you said was considerably broader than that:

It's almost like people on the left have different ideas and believe different things. Who would have thought that the left isn't one giant homogenous idea?

And you perfectly happy to claim the big tent until it started to become a problem for you, at which point things started narrowing.
 
Ya, you would. Thats not surprising many of us.

Our entire constitutional structure is based around the idea that there are many things the majority doesn't get no matter how many want it.
 
IF the vast majority of us would pay less then someone is paying a hell of a lot more. I would say the wealthy are already paying a pretty penny. The sad thing is one 5% sales tax across the board on all goods and all services and suddenly everyone is contributing and we have a balanced budget - maybe even room for a health care plan that makes sense.


I don't support robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

I'm actually totally against means tested welfare. However I do support shifting the tax burden away from incomes that are within the norm, and onto those who's consumption or lifestyles would not be effected by paying a larger portion of our total tax burden. this doesn't neccesarally mean a higher tax rate on earned income for anyone (not even the rich). Under the "imagep plan" the vast majority of us would pay less in taxes.
 
Oh, what you said was considerably broader than that:

And you perfectly happy to claim the big tent until it started to become a problem for you, at which point things started narrowing.

I'm not sure how you got "big tent of contradictory ideas" out of my post. What I said did not imply that there were huge, dynamic differences in opinion and ideology all over the place on the left. You simply didn't understand what I was saying if that is what you got out of it. Yes, people on the left have different ideas and believe different things, because there are a plethora of different issues in politics, and not everybody is going to have the exact same ideas about how to get to where we want to go. The same is true for the right. No, the left is not one giant homogenous idea, and neither is the right. People on the left having opinions that do not converge completely does not mean that we're a "big tent of contradictory ideas" and I honestly find it asinine that I even have to lay this out for you. People on the left still agree on most things, despite different opinions on certain issues.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all that. Some people will never be able to escape poverty due to circumstances they cannot control. They would, however, be the exception to the rule. For the most part, figuring out how to get people to be more productive would solve the problem for them of increasing their income.
Anyone can escape poverty if they use their resources correctly. A person with very limited skills can put "time in" to a single job, this is the hardest way to do it, but accumulating raises has a very positive back end effect and some low skilled workers can make a decent living provided the government stops bringing the MW to the level they've earned through loyal service(perfect example, man I worked with in my high school years and college was making 13+ an hour as a career busboy, this was at a time when the MW was under 5$/hr.).

The next way to do it is to obtain skills, like going to school while working a low wage job, or getting into a management program, etc. and gaining leverage, leverage is the easiest way to negotiate wages because people don't want to lose qualified employees to their competitors.


The third way, and the less government intervention the more possible is to develop a new idea or improve an old one. Great example; The margarita machine, which came to be popular in making daiquiris as well and other frozen drinks, the owner of a Dallas restaurant pieced it together to solve the problem of his bar being overextended. The results were a man who could have had a decent living as a restaurant owner being a millionaire with licensing for his creation.
 
Anyone can escape poverty if they use their resources correctly.


You have to accept that sometimes things out of your control can prevent it ( sh*t happens) but it is possible to improve your situation in most cases. Poverty is just a relative term not a physical thing that can be 'fixed'.
 
Obviously taxing the crap out of the poor would result in them living an even worse lifestyle,.

True but it would not be significantly worse. After all if you have basically nothing then having nothing at all isn't a big step. Wasn't that your conditions, that it would effect their current situation very much?
 
You have to accept that sometimes things out of your control can prevent it ( sh*t happens) but it is possible to improve your situation in most cases. Poverty is just a relative term not a physical thing that can be 'fixed'.
Sure, some people get caught in the unemployment cycle, some people have a ****ty upper management that underestimate their abilities, etc. Some people are exceptional at manual labor and get injured. However more often than not the people I see "stuck" in a cycle aren't even trying to improve, they just "accept" it and give up.
 
Back
Top Bottom