Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Three Proposals on Minimum Wage Reform.

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:44:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright, I'm not claiming these three proposals are perfect, bet they're the creation of some brainstorming I've been doing lately. Anyways, tell me which ones you like and don't like, or just criticize them if you want.

Proposal 1: Progressive Wage Laws

This one is pretty simple, but many would argue its to unfair and socialist. Basically, it would involve setting the minimum wage based on the company or businesses.....

1. Employees

2. Wealth (of company)

3. Benefits/Insurance

For example, a wealthy company like Mcdonald's would have a higher minimum wage then Eddie's Car Wash. Also, benefits can substitute the price of the wage. So if a business provides vacation days, then they can omit some additional wages.

I'm certain some people will find some flaws in proposal 1, but I see some promise in progressive laws, which have a history of succeeding.

Proposal 2: Wage Exemption Laws

Proposal 2 involves having a set wage. I will say a moderate number for the purpose of this thread, like 10$. What will happen, is all companies will have to pay this set wage, but with a catch. Companies have the opportunity to file for a exemption, in order to pay a lower wage. To be eligible, they need to report to a bureaucracy like the IRS, that the increases will hurt their company to a damaging level.

Something like this might already exist, and I would find it silly if it didn't, but I currently know nothing like this in the US.

Proposal 3: Increases with checks

This proposal is nothing new, and I feel its the most likely to be implemented. It involves writing a bill to increase the wages to, lets say 8.50$. If the wage is proven to be successful after a period of lets say, 5 months, then it gets increased even further.

Some main concerns with this one have been the slowness of the process, but it is indeed a cautious and baby step way of handling reform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, that's it. I personally agree with proposal 1, but I'm not to well researched into it. I know conservatives would never let it happen, but I think it has a lot of potential.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:01:11 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Why does no one venture into economics :(

Because they don't understand it lol. All they know is "government is force! Cut Taxes!" because that's all the nuance they can comprehend.

I'll respond to your post in a minute.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:44:46 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Alright, I'm not claiming these three proposals are perfect, bet they're the creation of some brainstorming I've been doing lately. Anyways, tell me which ones you like and don't like, or just criticize them if you want.

Proposal 1: Progressive Wage Laws

This one is pretty simple, but many would argue its to unfair and socialist. Basically, it would involve setting the minimum wage based on the company or businesses.....

1. Employees

2. Wealth (of company)

3. Benefits/Insurance

For example, a wealthy company like Mcdonald's would have a higher minimum wage then Eddie's Car Wash. Also, benefits can substitute the price of the wage. So if a business provides vacation days, then they can omit some additional wages.

I'm certain some people will find some flaws in proposal 1, but I see some promise in progressive laws, which have a history of succeeding.

I don't see a problem with this. If anything the current system where Wal-Mart is effectively subsidized by the US taxpayer is socialist -- not adjusting wage laws based on the company's positioning. I only question where you would draw the line.

Proposal 2: Wage Exemption Laws

Proposal 2 involves having a set wage. I will say a moderate number for the purpose of this thread, like 10$. What will happen, is all companies will have to pay this set wage, but with a catch. Companies have the opportunity to file for a exemption, in order to pay a lower wage. To be eligible, they need to report to a bureaucracy like the IRS, that the increases will hurt their company to a damaging level.

Something like this might already exist, and I would find it silly if it didn't, but I currently know nothing like this in the US.

This one I strongly disagree with. The government is bought and sold by the Koch Brothers, defense industry, etc., so the well-connected would manage to get exemptions, and the largest companies would simply suppress wages, while mom-and-pop shops who actually may struggle with the additional costs and actually deserve and exemption would get screwed over. And, if they don't, then everyone gets an exemption, and this rule becomes irrelevant.

Proposal 3: Increases with checks

This proposal is nothing new, and I feel its the most likely to be implemented. It involves writing a bill to increase the wages to, lets say 8.50$. If the wage is proven to be successful after a period of lets say, 5 months, then it gets increased even further.

Some main concerns with this one have been the slowness of the process, but it is indeed a cautious and baby step way of handling reform.

You mean allowing the minimum wage to rise in accordance with some index? Sure. Which index? Inflation? Productivity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, that's it. I personally agree with proposal 1, but I'm not to well researched into it. I know conservatives would never let it happen, but I think it has a lot of potential.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:07:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:02:10 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:01:11 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Why does no one venture into economics :(

Because they don't understand it lol. All they know is "government is force! Cut Taxes!" because that's all the nuance they can comprehend.

I'll respond to your post in a minute.

Ha, your absolutely right. I try reasoning with them in the polls actual statistics, and I'm always met with the same response. Like the military budget. I was arguing with 5 conservatives, and only one good argument was made. All I heard was "We need to reduce spending, not cut programs".
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:07:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:02:10 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:01:11 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Why does no one venture into economics :(

Because they don't understand it lol. All they know is "government is force! Cut Taxes!" because that's all the nuance they can comprehend.

I'll respond to your post in a minute.

Ha, your absolutely right. I try reasoning with them in the polls actual statistics, and I'm always met with the same response. Like the military budget. I was arguing with 5 conservatives, and only one good argument was made. All I heard was "We need to reduce spending, not cut programs".

Isn't it curious that at the top of their "deficit reduction" plan is "cut taxes for the rich" (increases the deficit), repeal the ACA (repealing it increases the deficit), increase the military budget (increases the deficits), and slash spending on domestic programs (shrinks GDP and increases the debt: GDP ratio)? Either they're dumb, bought and sold by every special interest imaginable, trolling, or some combination of the three.

But yeah, there's a reason Rick Santorum said "we'll never have the smart people on our side" or that colleges indoctrinate students in liberalism. Yes, they do. They're called facts. There's plenty of evidence proving that liberals have higher IQs, are more educated, less religious, etc. Conservatives are just too dumb to realize that.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:13:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:05:48 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:44:46 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Alright, I'm not claiming these three proposals are perfect, bet they're the creation of some brainstorming I've been doing lately. Anyways, tell me which ones you like and don't like, or just criticize them if you want.

Proposal 1: Progressive Wage Laws

This one is pretty simple, but many would argue its to unfair and socialist. Basically, it would involve setting the minimum wage based on the company or businesses.....

1. Employees

2. Wealth (of company)

3. Benefits/Insurance

For example, a wealthy company like Mcdonald's would have a higher minimum wage then Eddie's Car Wash. Also, benefits can substitute the price of the wage. So if a business provides vacation days, then they can omit some additional wages.

I'm certain some people will find some flaws in proposal 1, but I see some promise in progressive laws, which have a history of succeeding.

I don't see a problem with this. If anything the current system where Wal-Mart is effectively subsidized by the US taxpayer is socialist -- not adjusting wage laws based on the company's positioning. I only question where you would draw the line.

Oh, its good that someone agrees with me on this. I didn't do a ton of research on this. The biggest problem I see is that the management of all these wages. Either a new bureaucracy would need to be created or we would be forced to increase the budget on existing ones like the IRS. Only a minor issue though


Proposal 2: Wage Exemption Laws

Proposal 2 involves having a set wage. I will say a moderate number for the purpose of this thread, like 10$. What will happen, is all companies will have to pay this set wage, but with a catch. Companies have the opportunity to file for a exemption, in order to pay a lower wage. To be eligible, they need to report to a bureaucracy like the IRS, that the increases will hurt their company to a damaging level.

Something like this might already exist, and I would find it silly if it didn't, but I currently know nothing like this in the US.

This one I strongly disagree with. The government is bought and sold by the Koch Brothers, defense industry, etc., so the well-connected would manage to get exemptions, and the largest companies would simply suppress wages, while mom-and-pop shops who actually may struggle with the additional costs and actually deserve and exemption would get screwed over. And, if they don't, then everyone gets an exemption, and this rule becomes irrelevant.

I agree that this system could be corrupted, but I believe that the bureaucrats could handle the difficulties. Hopefully, the exemption will be used rarely , and not thrown around lightly. I'm more aligned with proposal 1 anyways.


Proposal 3: Increases with checks

This proposal is nothing new, and I feel its the most likely to be implemented. It involves writing a bill to increase the wages to, lets say 8.50$. If the wage is proven to be successful after a period of lets say, 5 months, then it gets increased even further.

Some main concerns with this one have been the slowness of the process, but it is indeed a cautious and baby step way of handling reform.

You mean allowing the minimum wage to rise in accordance with some index? Sure. Which index? Inflation? Productivity?

I hadn't really gave much thought into that. I'm sure there are ways to calculate the success. I'll have to do more research into it, but it should not be a huge problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, that's it. I personally agree with proposal 1, but I'm not to well researched into it. I know conservatives would never let it happen, but I think it has a lot of potential.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:16:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:11:00 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:07:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:02:10 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:01:11 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Why does no one venture into economics :(

Because they don't understand it lol. All they know is "government is force! Cut Taxes!" because that's all the nuance they can comprehend.

I'll respond to your post in a minute.

Ha, your absolutely right. I try reasoning with them in the polls actual statistics, and I'm always met with the same response. Like the military budget. I was arguing with 5 conservatives, and only one good argument was made. All I heard was "We need to reduce spending, not cut programs".

Isn't it curious that at the top of their "deficit reduction" plan is "cut taxes for the rich" (increases the deficit), repeal the ACA (repealing it increases the deficit), increase the military budget (increases the deficits), and slash spending on domestic programs (shrinks GDP and increases the debt: GDP ratio)? Either they're dumb, bought and sold by every special interest imaginable, trolling, or some combination of the three.

But yeah, there's a reason Rick Santorum said "we'll never have the smart people on our side" or that colleges indoctrinate students in liberalism. Yes, they do. They're called facts. There's plenty of evidence proving that liberals have higher IQs, are more educated, less religious, etc. Conservatives are just too dumb to realize that.

Yeah, I agree with you. Nothing actually supports deficit reduction. Most conservatives join for the moral and religious reasons, and end up supporting a couple of rich scumbags at the top of the party. The republican party is also plagued with SIG's like the NRA. The RP issues a statement and before you know it, every single conservative now highly supports what they say.

I also lol'd at the trolling part.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:28:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:16:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:11:00 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:07:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:02:10 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:01:11 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Why does no one venture into economics :(

Because they don't understand it lol. All they know is "government is force! Cut Taxes!" because that's all the nuance they can comprehend.

I'll respond to your post in a minute.

Ha, your absolutely right. I try reasoning with them in the polls actual statistics, and I'm always met with the same response. Like the military budget. I was arguing with 5 conservatives, and only one good argument was made. All I heard was "We need to reduce spending, not cut programs".

Isn't it curious that at the top of their "deficit reduction" plan is "cut taxes for the rich" (increases the deficit), repeal the ACA (repealing it increases the deficit), increase the military budget (increases the deficits), and slash spending on domestic programs (shrinks GDP and increases the debt: GDP ratio)? Either they're dumb, bought and sold by every special interest imaginable, trolling, or some combination of the three.

But yeah, there's a reason Rick Santorum said "we'll never have the smart people on our side" or that colleges indoctrinate students in liberalism. Yes, they do. They're called facts. There's plenty of evidence proving that liberals have higher IQs, are more educated, less religious, etc. Conservatives are just too dumb to realize that.

Yeah, I agree with you. Nothing actually supports deficit reduction. Most conservatives join for the moral and religious reasons, and end up supporting a couple of rich scumbags at the top of the party. The republican party is also plagued with SIG's like the NRA. The RP issues a statement and before you know it, every single conservative now highly supports what they say.

I also lol'd at the trolling part.

Excuse my ignorance, but who's the RP?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 4:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:28:16 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:16:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:11:00 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:07:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:02:10 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:01:11 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Why does no one venture into economics :(

Because they don't understand it lol. All they know is "government is force! Cut Taxes!" because that's all the nuance they can comprehend.

I'll respond to your post in a minute.

Ha, your absolutely right. I try reasoning with them in the polls actual statistics, and I'm always met with the same response. Like the military budget. I was arguing with 5 conservatives, and only one good argument was made. All I heard was "We need to reduce spending, not cut programs".

Isn't it curious that at the top of their "deficit reduction" plan is "cut taxes for the rich" (increases the deficit), repeal the ACA (repealing it increases the deficit), increase the military budget (increases the deficits), and slash spending on domestic programs (shrinks GDP and increases the debt: GDP ratio)? Either they're dumb, bought and sold by every special interest imaginable, trolling, or some combination of the three.

But yeah, there's a reason Rick Santorum said "we'll never have the smart people on our side" or that colleges indoctrinate students in liberalism. Yes, they do. They're called facts. There's plenty of evidence proving that liberals have higher IQs, are more educated, less religious, etc. Conservatives are just too dumb to realize that.

Yeah, I agree with you. Nothing actually supports deficit reduction. Most conservatives join for the moral and religious reasons, and end up supporting a couple of rich scumbags at the top of the party. The republican party is also plagued with SIG's like the NRA. The RP issues a statement and before you know it, every single conservative now highly supports what they say.

I also lol'd at the trolling part.

Excuse my ignorance, but who's the RP?

Republican Party
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 4:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:44:46 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Alright, I'm not claiming these three proposals are perfect, bet they're the creation of some brainstorming I've been doing lately. Anyways, tell me which ones you like and don't like, or just criticize them if you want.

Proposal 1: Progressive Wage Laws

This one is pretty simple, but many would argue its to unfair and socialist. Basically, it would involve setting the minimum wage based on the company or businesses.....

1. Employees

2. Wealth (of company)

3. Benefits/Insurance

For example, a wealthy company like Mcdonald's would have a higher minimum wage then Eddie's Car Wash. Also, benefits can substitute the price of the wage. So if a business provides vacation days, then they can omit some additional wages.

Here's the problem with that - why are employees at McDonald's entitled to a higher wage than people at Eddie's Car Wash? Flipping burgers certainly isn't harder than washing cars. If the idea behind a minimum wage is that everyone deserves a minimum amount of money, why allow something like this? I see this as just as discriminatory as making racial, ethnic, or gender-based minimum wages.

I'm certain some people will find some flaws in proposal 1, but I see some promise in progressive laws, which have a history of succeeding.

Proposal 2: Wage Exemption Laws

Proposal 2 involves having a set wage. I will say a moderate number for the purpose of this thread, like 10$. What will happen, is all companies will have to pay this set wage, but with a catch. Companies have the opportunity to file for a exemption, in order to pay a lower wage. To be eligible, they need to report to a bureaucracy like the IRS, that the increases will hurt their company to a damaging level.

Something like this might already exist, and I would find it silly if it didn't, but I currently know nothing like this in the US.

Yay, more paperwork! Sarcasm aside, the big issue here is the definition of 'damage' varies, and I see a major problem with passing laws allowing businesses to get out of laws that they think damage them. For example, could a power plant be exempted from air pollution laws because it hurts their bottom line? If you have laws, apply them equally to all.

Proposal 3: Increases with checks

This proposal is nothing new, and I feel its the most likely to be implemented. It involves writing a bill to increase the wages to, lets say 8.50$. If the wage is proven to be successful after a period of lets say, 5 months, then it gets increased even further.

Some main concerns with this one have been the slowness of the process, but it is indeed a cautious and baby step way of handling reform.

This is also silly. What do you define as 'working'? The only thing that would make possible sense is linking it to inflation, which some states have done. I don't like the minimum wage but that's about the only option here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, that's it. I personally agree with proposal 1, but I'm not to well researched into it. I know conservatives would never let it happen, but I think it has a lot of potential.

I don't think even liberals would jump on that because it simply doesn't even promote equality. If I had it my way, in my perfect world there would be no minimum wage. Sure, businesses could try and get away with paying people $3.00 an hour, but if nobody wants to work for that price, they aren't going to stay in business very long. Of course, that's just idealism - there's no way it ever gets repealed.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 4:11:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 4:01:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:44:46 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Alright, I'm not claiming these three proposals are perfect, bet they're the creation of some brainstorming I've been doing lately. Anyways, tell me which ones you like and don't like, or just criticize them if you want.

Proposal 1: Progressive Wage Laws

This one is pretty simple, but many would argue its to unfair and socialist. Basically, it would involve setting the minimum wage based on the company or businesses.....

1. Employees

2. Wealth (of company)

3. Benefits/Insurance

For example, a wealthy company like Mcdonald's would have a higher minimum wage then Eddie's Car Wash. Also, benefits can substitute the price of the wage. So if a business provides vacation days, then they can omit some additional wages.

Here's the problem with that - why are employees at McDonald's entitled to a higher wage than people at Eddie's Car Wash? Flipping burgers certainly isn't harder than washing cars. If the idea behind a minimum wage is that everyone deserves a minimum amount of money, why allow something like this? I see this as just as discriminatory as making racial, ethnic, or gender-based minimum wages.

1. The wages aren't relied on the conditions of the job or gender/race. The idea behind progressive laws, is to protect the business from being hurt by minimum wage increases. For example, if a company can't afford to pay higher wages, then they might be exempted. Also, if a employee decides to sign on with benefits, then they receive lower wages. Laws like this prevent having a set damage on everyone in America. None the less, you have pointed out some legitimate arguments.

I'm certain some people will find some flaws in proposal 1, but I see some promise in progressive laws, which have a history of succeeding.

Proposal 2: Wage Exemption Laws

Proposal 2 involves having a set wage. I will say a moderate number for the purpose of this thread, like 10$. What will happen, is all companies will have to pay this set wage, but with a catch. Companies have the opportunity to file for a exemption, in order to pay a lower wage. To be eligible, they need to report to a bureaucracy like the IRS, that the increases will hurt their company to a damaging level.

Something like this might already exist, and I would find it silly if it didn't, but I currently know nothing like this in the US.

Yay, more paperwork! Sarcasm aside, the big issue here is the definition of 'damage' varies, and I see a major problem with passing laws allowing businesses to get out of laws that they think damage them. For example, could a power plant be exempted from air pollution laws because it hurts their bottom line? If you have laws, apply them equally to all.

I think you have a misconception on this law. The exemption only applies if the businesses is critically endangered, and on the verge of collapse. Not if the wages hurt their business. As I told Libertario, they are not to be handed out like candies, but as a final defense to protect the capital collapse of a company.

Proposal 3: Increases with checks

This proposal is nothing new, and I feel its the most likely to be implemented. It involves writing a bill to increase the wages to, lets say 8.50$. If the wage is proven to be successful after a period of lets say, 5 months, then it gets increased even further.

Some main concerns with this one have been the slowness of the process, but it is indeed a cautious and baby step way of handling reform.

This is also silly. What do you define as 'working'? The only thing that would make possible sense is linking it to inflation, which some states have done. I don't like the minimum wage but that's about the only option here.

Plenty of factors can be classified under this. The most notable of which would be government organized collection surveys. Did it help the economy? Are businesses being hurt? Are employees satisfied?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, that's it. I personally agree with proposal 1, but I'm not to well researched into it. I know conservatives would never let it happen, but I think it has a lot of potential.

I don't think even liberals would jump on that because it simply doesn't even promote equality. If I had it my way, in my perfect world there would be no minimum wage. Sure, businesses could try and get away with paying people $3.00 an hour, but if nobody wants to work for that price, they aren't going to stay in business very long. Of course, that's just idealism - there's no way it ever gets repealed.

Actually, your wrong here. I've heard all of these in some kind of form from liberals. I also don't think you fully understood most of these. Feel free to debate me on proposal 1 if you want.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:14:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Indeed, you said that the wealthier buisnesses would have to pay their employees a higher minimum wage this would result in decreased profit, right?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:21:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:14:12 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Indeed, you said that the wealthier buisnesses would have to pay their employees a higher minimum wage this would result in decreased profit, right?

Oh, so your against the minimum wage in general! Which is absolutey the stupidest thing on the right wing. Raising the minimum wage actually helps the economy. Currently, the majority of businesses have more then enough money to pay higher wages. No one's questioning that, but the republicans are analyzing whether or not small scale businesses can survive the increased wage.

That is a legitimate concern. Your theory that businesses will outsource is obscene. Companies that abide by the minimum wage are places like Mc. Donald's and KFC. They wont outsource due to a 2.00$ increase. This is one of the stupidest things I ever heard.

Now, back to the original problem of small businesses not being able to pay the raise. By instituting progressive wages, then we can make sure small companies survive while large ones pay the deficit
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:26:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:21:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:14:12 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Indeed, you said that the wealthier buisnesses would have to pay their employees a higher minimum wage this would result in decreased profit, right?

Oh, so your against the minimum wage in general! Which is absolutey the stupidest thing on the right wing. Raising the minimum wage actually helps the economy. Currently, the majority of businesses have more then enough money to pay higher wages. No one's questioning that, but the republicans are analyzing whether or not small scale businesses can survive the increased wage.

That is a legitimate concern. Your theory that businesses will outsource is obscene. Companies that abide by the minimum wage are places like Mc. Donald's and KFC. They wont outsource due to a 2.00$ increase. This is one of the stupidest things I ever heard.

Now, back to the original problem of small businesses not being able to pay the raise. By instituting progressive wages, then we can make sure small companies survive while large ones pay the deficit
Wait, what? I approve of the minimum wage and most of your proposal however I believe that instead of basing the increased minimum wage on which businesses are the wealthiest, you should base it on the profit of the buisnesses.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:27:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:26:37 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:21:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:14:12 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Indeed, you said that the wealthier buisnesses would have to pay their employees a higher minimum wage this would result in decreased profit, right?

Oh, so your against the minimum wage in general! Which is absolutey the stupidest thing on the right wing. Raising the minimum wage actually helps the economy. Currently, the majority of businesses have more then enough money to pay higher wages. No one's questioning that, but the republicans are analyzing whether or not small scale businesses can survive the increased wage.

That is a legitimate concern. Your theory that businesses will outsource is obscene. Companies that abide by the minimum wage are places like Mc. Donald's and KFC. They wont outsource due to a 2.00$ increase. This is one of the stupidest things I ever heard.

Now, back to the original problem of small businesses not being able to pay the raise. By instituting progressive wages, then we can make sure small companies survive while large ones pay the deficit
Wait, what? I approve of the minimum wage and most of your proposal however I believe that instead of basing the increased minimum wage on which businesses are the wealthiest, you should base it on the profit of the buisnesses.

It is though. Its based off of several factors, including income and capital.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:28:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:27:30 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:26:37 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:21:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:14:12 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Indeed, you said that the wealthier buisnesses would have to pay their employees a higher minimum wage this would result in decreased profit, right?

Oh, so your against the minimum wage in general! Which is absolutey the stupidest thing on the right wing. Raising the minimum wage actually helps the economy. Currently, the majority of businesses have more then enough money to pay higher wages. No one's questioning that, but the republicans are analyzing whether or not small scale businesses can survive the increased wage.

That is a legitimate concern. Your theory that businesses will outsource is obscene. Companies that abide by the minimum wage are places like Mc. Donald's and KFC. They wont outsource due to a 2.00$ increase. This is one of the stupidest things I ever heard.

Now, back to the original problem of small businesses not being able to pay the raise. By instituting progressive wages, then we can make sure small companies survive while large ones pay the deficit
Wait, what? I approve of the minimum wage and most of your proposal however I believe that instead of basing the increased minimum wage on which businesses are the wealthiest, you should base it on the profit of the buisnesses.

It is though. Its based off of several factors, including income and capital.
Then it seems we agree.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:30:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:28:56 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:27:30 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:26:37 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:21:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:14:12 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:11:45 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 2:10:40 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:56:52 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:49 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:53:00 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:49:12 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:46:45 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:41:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:40:29 AM, Actionsspeak wrote:
Seems more fair, and much like a typical tax system. The basis is if you gain more, you keep a smaller % but it's still more than what everyone else keeps.

Can you reply directly what concerns you might have?

This would destroy many rich buisnessman who currently have small profits but vast amounts of cash, then the rich may move out of the U.S. devastating the economy.

Which proposal? Your not being very specific
Apologies, proposal one.

You are still to vague. I don't see one way where your case is supported. How will this push out rich people?
The rich people who are making slim profits would then be losing money, they would then close the buisnesses that are losing money and open buisnesses in other countries where these wage laws don't exist and profits could be made.

Rich people who have slim pockets, aren't usually rich, and I still don't see any legitimate concerns. It seems your not in favor of raising the minimum, and I also sense your not big on economics? Anyways, feel free to debate me on this. Seems like a easy victory.
Not slim pockets at all, simply if the buisness they currently have open is making slim profits for example: a 65 year old buisness owner has had multiple grocery stores open for +25 years and has made an average of $100,000 a year after taxes and spending it on what he wishes. He currently has $2,500,000 but the last 3 years his profit has averaged $5,000 then your first proposal becomes law and he is now losing $20,000 a year so he decides to close down his 16 buisnesses and open buisnesses in a different nation resulting in a decreased state tax revenue for the nation of 0.07% next multiply 0.07% by hundreds since hundreds of millionaires/billionaires doing that.

Again, I think you need to reread my posts. You do know what progressive laws are right?
Indeed, you said that the wealthier buisnesses would have to pay their employees a higher minimum wage this would result in decreased profit, right?

Oh, so your against the minimum wage in general! Which is absolutey the stupidest thing on the right wing. Raising the minimum wage actually helps the economy. Currently, the majority of businesses have more then enough money to pay higher wages. No one's questioning that, but the republicans are analyzing whether or not small scale businesses can survive the increased wage.

That is a legitimate concern. Your theory that businesses will outsource is obscene. Companies that abide by the minimum wage are places like Mc. Donald's and KFC. They wont outsource due to a 2.00$ increase. This is one of the stupidest things I ever heard.

Now, back to the original problem of small businesses not being able to pay the raise. By instituting progressive wages, then we can make sure small companies survive while large ones pay the deficit
Wait, what? I approve of the minimum wage and most of your proposal however I believe that instead of basing the increased minimum wage on which businesses are the wealthiest, you should base it on the profit of the buisnesses.

It is though. Its based off of several factors, including income and capital.
Then it seems we agree.

Yeah, but from reading your arguments, you were talking about income. I see little relation between the two sides, so I'm left confused. Oh well, at least we agree.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:06:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand what you're trying to do with progressive wage laws, and in principle I like the idea that large companies would pay higher wages because they're physically able to do so. However, my worry is that it effectively incentivises working at McDonalds for, let's say, $20 an hour or $15 an hour. I'm not saying that workers shouldn't be paid a good living wage -- 20 may be pushing it, but I've always supported a $15 minimum wage permanently indexed to inflation -- but then I question how progressive this law would really be. Could a local mom and pop shop pay, for instance, less than the current federal minimum wage? The idea isn't bad at all, but I think it requires drawing lines in the sand and examining the possible unintended consequences.

The second is interesting, but I think ConservativeLibertarian has a point: there is a possibility that very large, politically connected individuals could dodge it. It hinges, honestly, on a perfect political system. But I could see this being reasonable, in conjunction with some sort of tiered system (I don't think you're saying that some companies should be able to opt out completely, but correct me if I'm wrong). But in that case, it's very much like the progressive wage system.

The last one I find a bit vague. Are you advocating for a system similar to that of Australia, where their minimum wage rises every single year? I could get behind that.