Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jrock2310 said:

You don’t care about taxes when its spent on abc;  you only care when its xyz.

You also pay for social programs as a safety net for not only others, but for yourself in the event you end up needing it later.

 

To be honest, I also don't like that my tax dollars are spent on creating/escalating and waging wars that I don't support, will never benefit from, and which cause generations of suffering for people I like more than the politicians making it happen. 

 

On the other hand, you never hear RWNJs complaining about how immoral that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is not only immoral; it's for wimps and sissies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Skans said:

Socialism is not only immoral; it's for wimps and sissies.

Why do you say that?  :lol:  Because democratic socialists don't want to hoard all their money and keep it for themselves?  

 

Because it's "wimpy" to want the working poor to have a chance in life, huh?  :rolleyes:  Selfishness is "manly."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why do you say that? 

Socialists demand others pay for what they can't or wont - that's wimpy and weak.  Rather than work hard, sacrifice and rely on an individuals natural talents to make what he/she can in this world, Socialists are all about demanding government handouts, like:

1. Free housing

2.  Free school

3.  Free college

5.  Free internet

6.  Free cell phones

7.  Free doctors fixing their individual health problems

8.  Free discretionary money to spend so they can be more "equal"

9.  Free money for things that happened to people who died 150 years ago

10.  Free transportation

11.  Free dope and needles to inject their dope

12.  Free addiction treatment programs

 

Socialism - promising people free stuff that they can't or won't provide for themselves and enslaving others to pay for it.  Socialism is what weak and wimpy people demand of others because they cannot provide for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

Socialists demand others pay for what they can't or wont - that's wimpy and weak.

 

I donate thousands annually to help others.  I absolutely walk the walk.

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

Rather than work hard, sacrifice and rely on an individuals natural talents to make what he/she can in this world,

I've worked full-time my entire life.  I've been at my current job for over 30 years, some years working over 1,000 hours of overtime annually.  Again, I walk the walk.  

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

Socialists are all about demanding government handouts, like:

1. Free housing

I'm a democratic socialist, but I've never demanded free housing.

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

2.  Free school

Yes.

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

3.  Free college

Free college tuition, yes.  It's an investment in our future.  

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

5.  Free internet

6.  Free cell phones

No, I've never once asked for that.

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

7.  Free doctors fixing their individual health problems

Single payer, yes.  Like every other industrialized country on earth.  Healthcare should be a right.  Otherwise the poor will die.  Is that YOUR goal?

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

8.  Free discretionary money to spend so they can be more "equal".

No, where do you get this shit?

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

9.  Free money for things that happened to people who died 150 years ago

Reparations are decided by the courts, no social policy.

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

10.  Free transportation

11.  Free dope and needles to inject their dope

Again, no.

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

12.  Free addiction treatment programs

Addiction is a medical condition.  Single payer.  Yes.  Otherwise they will remain addicted and die.  Do you like dead people, Skans?  I believe we should help our fellow man (as it could, one day, be US in the same predicament).

 

1 minute ago, Skans said:

Socialism - promising people free stuff that they can't or won't provide for themselves and enslaving others to pay for it.  Socialism is what weak and wimpy people demand of others because they cannot provide for themselves.

Again, I've never once been unemployed.  I've never accepted a dime of government assistance.  I have plenty of money and own two homes.  I donate thousands to those in need in my area because others are hurting.  I think our government needs to help it's citizens, too.  It beats spending trillions on nukes and kill toys that will do nothing but destroy life.

 

Why are you against helping the poor, yet you have no problem with corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, and passing policy so the rich become richer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm a democratic socialist, but I've never demanded free housing.

There are lots of housing programs, all a result of Democrat Socialists which are free for poor people, or subsidized with other people's money.  A perfect example of socialists not paying for what they receive.

 

Quote

8.  Free discretionary money to spend so they can be more "equal".

No, where do you get this shit? 

It's is in AOC's New Green Deal

Quote

Healthcare should be a right. 

Slavery - yes, we know that anything a Socialist wants they will call a right.   It would serve you Socialists well to recall that free labor required to pick cotton was a "right" that plantation owners believed in and demanded.  Same thing with health care - you want to force people to accept what you will be willing to give them to dole out free medical services to the masses.  Slavery.  Socialism.  One and the same.
 

Quote

 

Reparations are decided by the courts, no social policy.

 

No court in the US has ever decided to make today's tax payers pay reparations for slaves who died 150 years ago.  Yet, Socialists continue to advocate vociferously for this.

 

Quote

Addiction is a medical condition. 

Addiction is a self-inflicted problem as a result of ingesting drugs to get high which every school kid is taught not to do.  It is not a disease.  It is not a genetic disorder.  People who intentionally do catastrophic things to their own bodies should be allowed to die, wallow in their misery, or pay for rehabilitation on their own.   Everyone will die of some "medical condition" - big deal, this is inevitable.
 

Quote

 

Again, I've never once been unemployed. 

 

Assuming what you say is true, which we have no way of verifying, so what?  You still want to force others to pay for services that you are unwilling to pay for yourself!  Even if those services are not for you, your Socialism still forces others to do what you can't or won't do yourself, and that is weak!  Again, Socialism is State Slavery where the State owns the Slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

To be honest, I also don't like that my tax dollars are spent on creating/escalating and waging wars that I don't support, will never benefit from, and which cause generations of suffering for people I like more than the politicians making it happen. 

 

On the other hand, you never hear RWNJs complaining about how immoral that is.

 

To be honest...your tax returns are much less under Trump's "tax reform" than it was before.  Assuming you're middle classed and not rich.

 

200w.gif?cid=3640f6095c700cf46f2f786267a

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

To be honest, I also don't like that my tax dollars are spent on creating/escalating and waging wars that I don't support, will never benefit from, and which cause generations of suffering for people I like more than the politicians making it happen. 

 

On the other hand, you never hear RWNJs complaining about how immoral that is.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 10:47 PM, jrock2310 said:

  You’re thread is too long. Less is more. 

Okay, I will just focus on a couple of items in separate posts and then come back and destroy the rest of your ignorant dribble after those are settled.

 

Quote

Drop the ad homs.  They don’t further the conversation.  It may feed your ego to type them out, but generally speaking its mental masturbation.

But it is okay for you to call me a "eunuch"?  So you can dish it out, but you can't take, hypocrite?

 

Since you are being so whiny about it, I will try to resist the temptation of humiliating you for your ignorance and try take it easy on you going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 10:47 PM, jrock2310 said:

Slavery has always been immoral.

 

Also side note:. I wasn’t around when slavery was prevelent in *AMERICAN* civilized society ... and neither were you.

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed or not, but, we kinda rectified the slavery issue in America.

 

Your failed attempt at hypocrisy would be true if we didn’t evolve away from slavery ... which we did btw.

The slavery conundrum?

 

Just did.  See above 👆

Why the hell are you bringing up completely irrelevant information that in no way answers my simple question?  I very, very clearly asked you that if your precious "society" is the great moral arbiter, then was slavery moral AT THE TIME IT EXISTED since "society" deemed that it was okay AT THE TIME IT EXISTED?  Whether slavery is still legal today is completely irrelevant to that question.  I think you are intentionally and cowardly trying to do dodge the question because you know you are trapped.  You made a pitifully stupid argument that since "society" allows money to be forcefully stolen and handed to other people, that this somehow magically makes it moral, and I completely eviscerated this bullshit argument with one single example.  As a result, you are ducking and weaving like a champ to avoid admitting your error.

 

Do you want to try answering my simple question again, or will you continue to cowardly dodge it with irrelevant nonsense?

 

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 10:47 PM, jrock2310 said:

Welp... news flash... you do pay for it if you pay taxes.  Otherwise you wouldn’t be here bitching about it now.  

You need to learn how to read.  I was talking about who would pay the extra money for your precious living wages, which has nothing to do with taxes.

Quote

You know the mcdoanlds empire has a net worth around $107 billion dollars that continues to profit?

Again, you keep posting these irrelevant factoids for some strange reason.  What the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote

This is blatantly ifnorant distortion of what you think living wage is and its application.

I am not "distorting" anything.  I am simply destroying your dumb argument that the source of increased wages from a moronic living wage law would come from the evil CEO, as there is not enough money there even if they could convince the CEO to work for FREE and distribute their wages to the workers instead.

Quote

Sure it would.   Franchises like mcdonalds are privately owned.  Which means the burden of costs goes to owners while a % of profit goes to the franchise.  So it wouldn’t be the franchise ($107 b net) taking on all costs for employees.  It would simply be the individual owner accou ting for his employees, whatever that number entails.

So now you are changing your claim from the big evil CEO paying it, to the evil franchise owners paying it out of their profits?  If so, then you are wrong yet again.  The profit margin of typical McDonald’s and other restaurants that employ lots of unskilled labor is typically in the single digits, so there is not nearly enough money there for your precious living wages even if you could somehow find a way to make that the source-

 

ib4272-chart-1-600.jpg

 

And even if profit margins were much higher, there is absolutely no reason that an increase in operating expenses, whether that is wages, taxes, raw materials, or anything else that affects an entire industry would come out of profits.  For example, when the price of crude oil increases, resulting in a higher price of wholesale gasoline, you think that comes out of the profits of the individual gas station owners?  Lol...

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory...

 

Quote

In this equation its important to note that employees everwhere are now earning $15/hr.  Which means more people are incentivized to participate in the rat race which only helps the economy.

Whoa!  We need to tell economists about your brilliant revelation!  We could have them call this “The Law of Supply” or something like that.  While they are at it, we could ask them to also come up with “The Law of Demand” regarding what happens to demand when there is an increase in the price of something.  What do you think that law would say about the “incentivizing” of the demand for unskilled labor when the price of it increases?  Lol…

 

Quote

 

In summation:. Employers may have to pay more to employees... but more people will be apt to come to your mcdonalds and spend money now that they have more money to spend.

 

Living wage is everything trickle down promoted but actually achieves.  It’s just now we’re getting rid of the middle man which is corps promising to take care of their employees.

 

Easy.

1 - more revenue to the public ensures redistribution via economic growth.  It’s cyclical — you give people more money, they’ll buy more of your products.  Which is the goal of business mind you.

Let’s examine this moronic claim a little closer, shall we?  Suppose some McDonald’s owner pays all his employees an extra $1k per month and these grateful, loyal employees were to plow every single red cent of that extra money right back into buying food at their restaurant.  Further, let’s generously assume that there are no taxes or other losses involved.  Even in this extremely rosy, best-case scenario, that restaurant owner is still only BREAKING EVEN at best on cash flow in this deal, but he has simultaneously given out thousands and thousands of dollars of food to his workers, resulting in massive losses that employers in general simply cannot afford in the long term with such thin profit margins.  So how the hell is this supposed to end up as a sustainable source of the extra money for your precious living wages?

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory, yet again...

 

 

Quote

2 -  If you’ll remember the IRS records that upwards of $300B of income/profit goes unreported.  This means CEO/Corps pocket untaxed profits.

First of all, where is your evidence that most of this unreported income is from the evil CEOs or corporations, as opposed to things like drug dealing and prostitution?  Secondly, even if you somehow force these tax cheats to report their income, how the hell is that supposed to go towards higher wages of unskilled workers?

 

 

Now, do you want to try my simple question yet again?  So far, you are really not doing very well.  Let me give you a hint- your liberal masters have probably never publicly admitted the correct answer in public, as they don't want the public to know where the money will come from.  They would much rather you sheep believe the things you have already recited- that it will come from some evil CEO or other evil rich guys somewhere.  I am sure your unquestioning acceptance and forwarding of their teachings to others would make your masters quite proud.  Kudos!

 

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Okay, I will just focus on a couple of items in separate posts and then come back and destroy the rest of your ignorant dribble after those are settled.

I guess we’ll see.

Quote

 

But it is okay for you to call me a "eunuch"?  So you can dish it out, but you can't take, hypocrite?

You started w/ the ad homs.  I’m simply playing in the mud w/ the rest of the pigs.

Quote

 

Since you are being so whiny about it, I will try to resist the temptation of humiliating you for your ignorance and try take it easy on you going forward.

Yeah... this post could have gone in the mental masturbation category.

 

less is more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Why the hell are you bringing up completely irrelevant information that in no way answers my simple question?  I very, very clearly asked you that if your precious "society" is the great moral arbiter, then was slavery moral AT THE TIME IT EXISTED since "society" deemed that it was okay AT THE TIME IT EXISTED

I never once insinuated society has always been moral.   Hence my my post.  Our society continues to progress and evolve our moral responsibility.  There is no finish line.  

 

Secondly, there were many people who were opposed to slavery.  Hence why it was abolished.

Quote

 

Whether slavery is still legal today is completely irrelevant to that question.  I think you are intentionally and cowardly trying to do dodge the question because you know you are trapped.

I fail to see how I’m “trapped”.  Slavery has always been immoral.  I don’t understand why you’re asking me to account for our societies past indiscretions.

 

I wasn’t around then.

 

That would be like me having you answer for wrongdoing in the past.  

 

YOU. WEREN’T. THERE. OR. INVOLVED.

 

Quote

 

 You made a pitifully stupid argument that since "society" allows money to be forcefully stolen and handed to other people, that this somehow magically makes it moral, and I completely eviscerated this bullshit argument with one single example.

Hello taxes.

Quote

 

  As a result, you are ducking and weaving like a champ to avoid admitting your error.

Again, I fail to see your correlation.

 

You’re okay for money (taxes) being taken for abc, just not xyz.

 

You’re arguments are weak, that’s why you continually end w/ a paragraph or more filled w/ ad homs.

Quote

 

Do you want to try answering my simple question again, or will you continue to cowardly dodge it with irrelevant nonsense?

The one I answered above? 👆

 

More useless/wasteful gibberish.

 

less is more.

Quote

 

Good luck.

 

🤞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

You need to learn how to read.  I was talking about who would pay the extra money for your precious living wages, which has nothing to do with taxes.

Corps/CEO’s pocketing gross/untaxed profits.

Quote

Again, you keep posting these irrelevant factoids for some strange reason.  What the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You brought up this ‘china tea’ argument, not me.

Quote

I am not "distorting" anything.  I am simply destroying your dumb argument that the source of increased wages from a moronic living wage law would come from the evil CEO, as there is not enough money there even if they could convince the CEO to work for FREE and distribute their wages to the workers instead.

{half the post is useless ad homs} 

 

Not true.  Even if you stuck w/ the fortune 500 compa ies alone you could largely assuage many low wage workers:. Amazon, Wal-mart, CVS, GM, Costco, Ford motors, etc...

Quote

So now you are changing your claim from the big evil CEO paying it, to the evil franchise owners paying it out of their profits?

Correct.  A franchise like McDonalds merely leases their name out to prospectus buyers.  The buyers pay to use the franchise name “McDonalds”.  

 

Buyers pay x for the name.  Buyer collects y on profits.

Quote

 

If so, then you are wrong yet again.  The profit margin of typical McDonald’s and other restaurants that employ lots of unskilled labor is typically in the single digits, so there is not nearly enough money there for your precious living wages even if you could somehow find a way to make that the source-

 

ib4272-chart-1-600.jpg

Not true when you take into account unreported income (which wouldn’t be in your graphic - remember the $300B that is annually unreported by the IRS?) 

 

https://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/irs-300-billion-a-year-goes-unpaid

 

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/DA/20050330/News/606106192/TL/

 

There’s a grand canyon gap b/t not being able to pay living wage versus not wanting to pay living wage.

 

 

Quote

And even if profit margins were much higher, there is absolutely no reason that an increase in operating expenses, whether that is wages, taxes, raw materials, or anything else that affects an entire industry would come out of profits.  For example, when the price of crude oil increases, resulting in a higher price of wholesale gasoline, you think that comes out of the profits of the individual gas station owners?  Lol...

I don’t see how that’s an issue.  Gas/Oil companies are likely the worst at crony capitalism.

 

The price of gas is hardly negotiable for store owners simply bcus these companies set the prices.  We either pay what they say or we kick rocks.   That’s typically why convenient stores sell other items.

 

Have you ever NOT bought gas/oil when you needed it?  

 

Of course not.  You’ll pay what they say bcus where else you gonna get it?

Quote

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory...

Don’t see how.  

Quote

 

Whoa!  We need to tell economists about your brilliant revelation!  We could have them call this “The Law of Supply” or something like that.  While they are at it, we could ask them to also come up with “The Law of Demand” regarding what happens to demand when there is an increase in the price of something.  What do you think that law would say about the “incentivizing” of the demand for unskilled labor when the price of it increases?  Lol…

Huh...?

Quote

 

Let’s examine this moronic claim a little closer, shall we?  Suppose some McDonald’s owner pays all his employees an extra $1k per month and these grateful, loyal employees were to plow every single red cent of that extra money right back into buying food at their restaurant.

Full stop.  I suppose levity & logic are too much to expect, so I guess I must expand since you can’t grasp the concept.

 

If a Mcds is considered a minimum wage job, that would imply ALL other companies and operations are also paying their employees the same new base line $15/hr wage.  

 

So if every American corp is now paying their employees a *MINIMUM* $15/hr wage that matches the rate of inflation, the we can conclude that w/ more money in the hands of more people, people will start to engage and pour more of their money back into said economy.

 

Before when minimum wage was $8/hr, people could barely afford rent & utilities.  Now w/ $12-15/hr, people are more motivated, inclined & encouraged to pour money back into the economy versus some big wig in titan towers buying stocks or a fourth home.

Quote

 

Further, let’s generously assume that there are no taxes or other losses involved.  Even in this extremely rosy, best-case scenario, that restaurant owner is still only BREAKING EVEN

Ever see a mcdonalds go out of business?

No.  They print money over there.  And bcus business like a mcds is only obligated to report x amount of income, they can pocket virtually more than they are reporting since labor costs & overhead are already low, on top of hiring PT crews.   Mds is a well oiled machine.  There are no surprises.  

Quote

 

at best on cash flow in this deal, but he has simultaneously given out thousands and thousands of dollars of food to his workers, resulting in massive losses that employers

Hardly... there’s a reason they comp employees... cheap, Bad wordty hamburgers, fries and soda.  

 

There’s a reason they’re profitable.. its bcus they sell you a few things:. Breakfast food, burgers, fries and soda.   They’re not out there selling you rack of lamb.  

Quote

 

in general simply cannot afford in the long term with such thin profit margins.

Wrong.  The only real change I could see would be they would hire less PT employees & hire a few dedicated full-time employees.  

Quote

 

 So how the hell is this supposed to end up as a sustainable source of the extra money for your precious living wages?

This is more pedantic ranting.  i’ve gone over this already.  You’re essentially asking me the same thing over and over in different terms.  Must be a troll tactic to appear clever.

Quote

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory, yet again...

Here is its again... you’re just making these threads longer.

 

Ask your questions and leave the lame ad homs alone.   Be an adult. 

Quote

 

 

First of all, where is your evidence that most of this unreported income is from the evil CEOs or corporations, as opposed to things like drug dealing and prostitution?  Secondly, even if you somehow force these tax cheats to report their income, how the hell is that supposed to go towards higher wages of unskilled workers?

Again?  This the second time you’ve asked this question.  Why do you repeat yourself?  You make these threads insufferable.

 

See where I posted the links.

Quote

 

 

Now, do you want to try my simple question yet again?  So far, you are really not doing very well.  Let me give you a hint- your liberal masters have probably never publicly admitted the correct answer in public, as they don't want the public to know where the money will come from.  They would much rather you sheep believe the things you have already recited- that it will come from some evil CEO or other evil rich guys somewhere.  I am sure your unquestioning acceptance and forwarding of their teachings to others would make your masters quite proud.  Kudos!

There’s not even a question in that entire distribe.  More mental masturbation.  Feel better after unloading all that mental diarrhea?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

I never once insinuated society has always been moral.

Yes, you fucking did.  That is what you were doing when you used "society has long decided" and the "fabric of our social construct" as a defense of welfare being moral.  If you weren't insinuating that society is a judge of what is moral, then it wouldn't make any damn sense to make these arguments!

 

Suppose someone claimed that some activity was immoral because Jesus said it was.   If that same person later said, "I never once insinuated that Jesus was a judge of what is moral", do you not see how unbelievably retarded and disconnected with reality that person would seem to be?  Lol...

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

  Hence my my post.  Our society continues to progress and evolve our moral responsibility.  There is no finish line.  

And how do you know that in the future, society won't wise up and decide that stealing money from some people just to hand it over to other people is immoral?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Secondly, there were many people who were opposed to slavery.  

And there are many people opposed to welfare today as well.  So what is your point?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Hence why it was abolished.

I fail to see how I’m “trapped”.  Slavery has always been immoral.  I don’t understand why you’re asking me to account for our societies past indiscretions.

 

I wasn’t around then.

 

That would be like me having you answer for wrongdoing in the past.  

 

YOU. WEREN’T. THERE. OR. INVOLVED.

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the simple question I asked.  I didn't have to be "THERE" or "INVOLVED" when the Holocaust was occurring in Europe to be able to definitively say that it was wrong.  So if I had stupidly made a previous argument that something was moral because the German government said so, then I would be trapped when someone brought up the example of the Holocaust.  I would have to either A. ludicrously claim the Holocaust was moral or B. admit my earlier claim of the moral authority of the German government was an act of extreme stupidity on my part.  This is essentially where you find yourself right now, which is why you keep cowardly dodging and bringing up irrelevant issues.  You have to either A. ludicrously claim that slavery was moral or B. admit that your earlier claim of welfare being moral because society says so was and act of extreme stupidity on your part.

 

So which is it?  A or B?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

You’re okay for money (taxes) being taken for abc, just not xyz.

Yes, so the fuck what?  Why the hell do you keep acting like the differences between abc and xyz in this case are completely arbitrary???

 

If someone said, "I think it is okay to kill someone in self-defense, but it is not okay to kill someone out of jealousy", would you stupidly argue, "You’re okay for killing for abc, just not xyz"?  Lol...

 

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

 

You’re arguments are weak, that’s why you continually end w/ a paragraph or more filled w/ ad homs.

Then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove me wrong for a change, instead of cowardly dodging questions by bringing up irrelevant information.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?

 

Good luck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Corps/CEO’s pocketing gross/untaxed profits.

Again, even if you somehow get the evil corps/CEO's to pay the taxes they are supposedly dodging, how are you proposing to get that money into the pockets of the workers?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

You brought up this ‘china tea’ argument, not me.

Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you are, and thus how unlikely you would be aware of common expressions.  Read here- Link.

 

"What's that got to do with the...?" is an expression denoting an irrelevance or non sequitur in the current discussion.

A common form, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?, is a retort to an irrelevant suggestion.[1] This facetious usage implies that the topic under discussion might as well be the price of tea in China for all the relevance the speaker's suggestion bears on it.

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Not true.  Even if you stuck w/ the fortune 500 compa ies alone you could largely assuage many low wage workers:. Amazon, Wal-mart, CVS, GM, Costco, Ford motors, etc...

Oh, so it is just "not true", because you fucking say so?  Strange how you were unable to backup this moronic claim?  Here is how I can back up my claims- Link.

 

what would happen if the CEOs of McDonald's, Starbucks and Walmart were to give away their entire pay to the workers. The result?

Workers' pay would increase just how much per hour
Only Starbucks workers would walk away with a full extra cent per hour of work if their CEO (Howard Schultz) agreed to hand over his entire paycheck.Here's math.

  1. McDonald's: Total CEO pay ($5,370,666) divided by total number of employees (420,000) = $0.0061 increase per hour for each worker.
  2. Starbucks: Total CEO pay ($3,806,192) divided by total number of employees (160,000) = $0.0114 increase per hour for each worker.
  3. Walmart: Total CEO pay ($6,214,777) divided by total number of employees (2,200,000) = $0.0014 increase per hour for each worker.

 

And even this is if the CEO's would agree to work for *****ZERO***** and give that money to all the workers, which they obviously are not going to do.  So how the hell would this supposedly "largely assuage many low wage workers"???

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory, yet again... 

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Correct.  A franchise like McDonalds merely leases their name out to prospectus buyers.  The buyers pay to use the franchise name “McDonalds”.  

 

Buyers pay x for the name.  Buyer collects y on profits.

No fucking duh.  What does this have to do with my question?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Not true when you take into account unreported income (which wouldn’t be in your graphic - remember the $300B that is annually unreported by the IRS?) 

 

https://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/irs-300-billion-a-year-goes-unpaid

 

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/DA/20050330/News/606106192/TL/

 

There’s a grand canyon gap b/t not being able to pay living wage versus not wanting to pay living wage.

Again, even if all these evil employers are hiding all this extra profit from the government, why the hell would they be the ones to fund the extra money for your precious living wage laws?  See my next part below.

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

I don’t see how that’s an issue.  Gas/Oil companies are likely the worst at crony capitalism.

 

The price of gas is hardly negotiable for store owners simply bcus these companies set the prices.  We either pay what they say or we kick rocks.   That’s typically why convenient stores sell other items.

 

Have you ever NOT bought gas/oil when you needed it?

 

Of course not.  You’ll pay what they say bcus where else you gonna get it?

You keep missing the simple point I am making.  The point is, when the price of crude oil and thus wholesale gasoline increases, your local gas station owner is NOT the one who loses money from their profits when this occurs.  And gas was just one example of many that I could have picked.  Here is another one- if the spot price of gold increases, does your local jewelry store lose profits on the gold rings they sell?  Similarly, if the price of unskilled labor increases industry-wide, why the hell would the employers of unskilled labor lose profits?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Huh...?

Surprise, surprise, another idiot lib that has never heard of the Laws of Supply & Demand.  Lol...

 

Are you truly too damn dumb to know what happens to the "demand" for goods and services when the price of them increases, assuming all other factors remain unchanged?

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Full stop.  I suppose levity & logic are too much to expect, so I guess I must expand since you can’t grasp the concept.

 

If a Mcds is considered a minimum wage job, that would imply ALL other companies and operations are also paying their employees the same new base line $15/hr wage.  

 

So if every American corp is now paying their employees a *MINIMUM* $15/hr wage that matches the rate of inflation, the we can conclude that w/ more money in the hands of more people, people will start to engage and pour more of their money back into said economy.

 

Before when minimum wage was $8/hr, people could barely afford rent & utilities.  Now w/ $12-15/hr, people are more motivated, inclined & encouraged to pour money back into the economy versus some big wig in titan towers buying stocks or a fourth home.

Wow, you are not very bright.  I was just simplifying your idiotic argument to one single business to show you how retarded it was.  Here it is using again, using all businesses instead-

 

Suppose all business owners pay all their employees an extra $1k per month and these employees were to plow every single red cent of that extra money right back into those businesses.   Further, let’s generously assume that there are no taxes or other losses involved.  Even in this extremely rosy, best-case scenario, all these business owners are still only BREAKING EVEN at best on cash flow in this deal, but they have simultaneously given out thousands and thousands of dollars of goods to their workers, resulting in massive losses.

 

Is this still too complicated for you to comprehend?  Businesses as a group can't be giving out a lot of extra money and SIMULTANEOUSLY be getting even more money back to fund it just because government passed a moronic living wage law.  That doesn't make any fucking sense.

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Ever see a mcdonalds go out of business?

No.  They print money over there.  And bcus business like a mcds is only obligated to report x amount of income, they can pocket virtually more than they are reporting since labor costs & overhead are already low, on top of hiring PT crews.   Mds is a well oiled machine.  There are no surprises.  

Of course this is not likely to put (most of) them out of business, because the are not the ones that will be funding your moronic living wages out of their profits.  That is my entire point!  The money will be coming from somewhere else, which you still have not correctly identified.

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Hardly... there’s a reason they comp employees... cheap, Bad wordty hamburgers, fries and soda.  

 

There’s a reason they’re profitable.. its bcus they sell you a few things:. Breakfast food, burgers, fries and soda.   They’re not out there selling you rack of lamb.

Okay, even if the food they give out doesn't cost them a single penny, they are still only BREAKING EVEN at best on cash flow in this deal, as I stated above.  And of course this rosy scenario in no way matches reality.

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

 

 

Wrong.  The only real change I could see would be they would hire less PT employees & hire a few dedicated full-time employees.  

This is more pedantic ranting.  i’ve gone over this already.  You’re essentially asking me the same thing over and over in different terms.  Must be a troll tactic to appear clever.

Here is its again... you’re just making these threads longer.

 

Ask your questions and leave the lame ad homs alone.   Be an adult. 

Again?  This the second time you’ve asked this question.  Why do you repeat yourself?  You make these threads insufferable.

I keep asking the question because you still haven't given the correct answer and I have very easily destroyed all the wrong answers you keep giving.

 

13 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

See where I posted the links.

There’s not even a question in that entire distribe.  More mental masturbation.  Feel better after unloading all that mental diarrhea?

Yes, I do quite enjoy humiliating you idiot libs for your ignorance and stupidity.  You are certainly not the first person to give these same wrong answers to my simple questions.  You idiot libs seem to all be singing from the same hymnal, which just so happen to match what most of your liberal masters preach.  I am sure that is just a pure coincidence, and not because you all are being brainwashed by your masters, right?  Lol...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

So if every American corp is now paying their employees a *MINIMUM* $15/hr wage that matches the rate of inflation, the we can conclude that w/ more money in the hands of more people, people will start to engage and pour more of their money back into said economy.

 

Before when minimum wage was $8/hr, people could barely afford rent & utilities.  Now w/ $12-15/hr, people are more motivated, inclined & encouraged to pour money back into the economy versus some big wig in titan towers buying stocks or a fourth home.

 

I have to say I dont agree with you that one, because if you raise the wage rate artificially through legislation , they will have more money yes, but you didn't factor in it puts them in a different tax bracket ( for some)

 

2) the way welfare is set up if they earn over a certain amount which 15 dollars will do it will cut off benefits

 

3) all other prices will increase, if you pay 15 dollars an hour to flip burgers and fries and cook mcchickens and nuggets , the prices increases on the food too, and the spin off effects of other commodities and prices increasing as well, which puts them back in the same boat when they were earning 8 dollars an hour.

 

So it's six of one half dozen of another.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

I have to say I dont agree with you that one, because if you raise the wage rate artificially through legislation , they will have more money yes, but you didn't factor in it puts them in a different tax bracket ( for some)

Yes.  With more money, more people can pay taxes.  If corps are set on $8/hr, then you can’t expect them to pay much of anything in taxes come April.  

 

The rich can’t have it both ways:. Complain poor people don’t pay enough in taxes;   While also not paying their poor employees enough to pay rent, let alone taxes.  

11 hours ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

2) the way welfare is set up if they earn over a certain amount which 15 dollars will do it will cut off benefits

Yes.  At $15/hr, $50 bucks a month, they could afford their own private insurance.  Which would save corps money.  Win/win.

11 hours ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

3) all other prices will increase, if you pay 15 dollars an hour to flip burgers and fries and cook mcchickens and nuggets , the prices increases on the food too, and the spin off effects of other commodities and prices increasing as well, which puts them back in the same boat when they were earning 8 dollars an hour.

Hence ‘matched w/ inflation’  disclosure.

11 hours ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

So it's six of one half dozen of another.

 

 

Not exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Yes, you fucking did.  That is what you were doing when you used "society has long decided" and the "fabric of our social construct" as a defense of welfare being moral.

In reference to social programs, you twat waffle.   You made the ‘moral’ relations, not me.

 

Also, you saying something is immoral speaks to your moral code, not everyone elses.  You are only the authority of your moral code.  So when you talk about morality, you’re simply spouting your subjective morality.  Which is irrelevant to objective morality.

Quote

 

 If you weren't insinuating that society is a judge of what is moral, then it wouldn't make any damn sense to make these arguments!

Learn the difference b/t subjective and objective morality.

Quote

 

Suppose someone claimed that some activity was immoral because Jesus said it was.   If that same person later said, "I never once insinuated that Jesus was a judge of what is moral", do you not see how unbelievably retarded and disconnected with reality that person would seem to be?  Lol...

You need a better analogy besides religion.

Quote

 

And how do you know that in the future, society won't wise up and decide that stealing money from some people just to hand it over to other people is immoral?

Like taxes?   

 

Again, 80% of people on social assistance  are in the workforce.

Quote

 

And there are many people opposed to welfare today as well.  So what is your point?

Yes.  There are people opposed to taxes as well.  That doesn’t mean its going anywhere.  

Quote

 

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the simple question I asked.  I didn't have to be "THERE" or "INVOLVED" when the Holocaust was occurring in Europe to be able to definitively say that it was wrong.

Right.  So what are you asking me... ??

Quote

 

  So if I had stupidly made a previous argument that something was moral because the German government said so, then I would be trapped when someone brought up the example of the Holocaust.  I would have to either A. ludicrously claim the Holocaust was moral or B. admit my earlier claim of the moral authority of the German government was an act of extreme stupidity on my part.  This is essentially where you find yourself right now, which is why you keep cowardly dodging and bringing up irrelevant issues.  You have to either A. ludicrously claim that slavery was moral or B. admit that your earlier claim of welfare being moral because society says so was and act of extreme stupidity on your part.

 

So which is it?  A or B?

I literally don’t know what the phuck you’re talking about.

 

You’re making up scenarios that don’t exist and are apparently asking me to play a ‘what if’ game in historical context?

 

Let me make this easy... nazi germany/holocaust - bad.  Slavery - bad.  

 

What are you wanting me to elaborate on? And how are your rants on slavery and nazi germany related to social assistance programs in modern day America?

Quote

 

Yes, so the fuck what?  Why the hell do you keep acting like the differences between abc and xyz in this case are completely arbitrary???

Whaaa...?

Quote

 

If someone said, "I think it is okay to kill someone in self-defense, but it is not okay to kill someone out of jealousy", would you stupidly argue, "You’re okay for killing for abc, just not xyz"?  Lol...

Is this a joke ?   

 

Are you trolling? 

 

I think you’re  trolling.

 

the longer and weirder this convo unfolds, the less sense your making.

Quote

 

 

Then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove me wrong for a change, instead of cowardly dodging questions by bringing up irrelevant information.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?

For you to ask a question in full form instead of reverting back to old posts.

 

If you’re going to ask a question, use a a quote or an excerpt like you did in the first paragraph.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Again, even if you somehow get the evil corps/CEO's to pay the taxes they are supposedly dodging, how are you proposing to get that money into the pockets of the workers?

Taxes or livable wage?

Quote

 

Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you are, and thus how unlikely you would be aware of common expressions.  Read here- Link.

 

"What's that got to do with the...?" is an expression denoting an irrelevance or non sequitur in the current discussion.

A common form, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?, is a retort to an irrelevant suggestion.[1] This facetious usage implies that the topic under discussion might as well be the price of tea in China for all the relevance the speaker's suggestion bears on it.

 

Oh goodie ... now I know ‘tea’ expression I’ll never use.

Quote

 

Oh, so it is just "not true", because you fucking say so?  Strange how you were unable to backup this moronic claim?  Here is how I can back up my claims- Link.

 

what would happen if the CEOs of McDonald's, Starbucks and Walmart were to give away their entire pay to the workers. The result?

 

No one has implied corps give away all their profits.

Quote

Workers' pay would increase just how much per hour
Only Starbucks workers would walk away with a full extra cent per hour of work if their CEO (Howard Schultz) agreed to hand over his entire paycheck.Here's math.

  1. McDonald's: Total CEO pay ($5,370,666) divided by total number of employees (420,000) = $0.0061 increase per hour for each worker.
  2. Starbucks: Total CEO pay ($3,806,192) divided by total number of employees (160,000) = $0.0114 increase per hour for each worker.
  3. Walmart: Total CEO pay ($6,214,777) divided by total number of employees (2,200,000) = $0.0014 increase per hour for each worker.

 

Remember the time I shared a link offering  over $300B that goes unaccounted for by the IRS annually?  And also that corps only have to report x amount of income, which doesn’t include their total net profit?

 

Ahhh good times.

 

I can’t wait til you link more articles only touting what corps are obligated to report versus unreported profits.

Quote

 

And even this is if the CEO's would agree to work for *****ZERO***** and give that money to all the workers, which they obviously are not going to do.  So how the hell would this supposedly "largely assuage many low wage workers"???

1) No one is asking for corps to take Zero anything.  

 

2)  See post directly above ☝️ in how corps would assuage workers.

Quote

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory, yet again... 

I guarantee you’ll ask me again in the next post and I will repat the unreported income and the requisite income corps are only required to report.

 

It’s gonna happen guaranteed.  

 

It’s happened in the last several posts. 

 

And you’ll do it again bcus you’re either a troll or you just like asking the same questions over and over again in different terms.

Quote

 

No fucking duh.  What does this have to do with my question?

I can’t keep scrolling backwards w/ my phone.  Either quote me directly so I know what we’re talking about or select the greatest hits and keep it moving.  This is taking far too much time and effort.

Quote

 

Again, even if all these evil employers are hiding all this extra profit from the government, why the hell would they be the ones to fund the extra money for your precious living wage laws?  See my next part below.

The same way they once fought against $8/hr.

 

If you had you’re druthers, you’d allow corps to decide people’s worth.   Which would ultimately amount to indentured servitude, which is basically slave labor.

 

Thank god for unions and labor laws.

Quote

 

You keep missing the simple point I am making.  The point is, when the price of crude oil and thus wholesale gasoline increases, your local gas station owner is NOT the one who loses money from their profits when this occurs.  And gas was just one example of many that I could have picked.  Here is another one- if the spot price of gold increases, does your local jewelry store lose profits on the gold rings they sell?  Similarly, if the price of unskilled labor increases industry-wide, why the hell would the employers of unskilled labor lose profits?

I explained this by sticking w/ the origianl gas/oil, convenient store analogy since they’re mutually linked.

Quote

 

Surprise, surprise, another idiot lib that has never heard of the Laws of Supply & Demand.  Lol...

Have you ever “demanded” gas prices before?  

 

Have you ever NOT bought gas when you needed it, even if prices were high?

 

Supply & demand largely speaks to popular demand:  Bargin buying, etc... But the American public has yet been able to budge on necessetous demands such as gas/oil.  

 

Countries go to war over this filth.  We’ll never go to war over wonderbread versus sunbeam.

Quote

 

Are you truly too damn dumb to know what happens to the "demand" for goods and services when the price of them increases, assuming all other factors remain unchanged?

Yes.  When prices get too high people bargin buy or they comparison shop.

 

We’re so far from homeplate I can’t even pretend (w/out context) to understand why you’re duscussing supply and demand when we’ve been over this already....

Quote

 

Wow, you are not very bright.  I was just simplifying your idiotic argument to one single business to show you how retarded it was.  Here it is using again, using all businesses instead-

 

Suppose all business owners pay all their employees an extra $1k per month and these employees were to plow every single red cent of that extra money right back into those businesses.   Further, let’s generously assume that there are no taxes or other losses involved.  Even in this extremely rosy, best-case scenario, all these business owners are still only BREAKING EVEN at best on cash flow in this deal, but they have simultaneously given out thousands and thousands of dollars of goods to their workers, resulting in massive losses.

This is the second or third time you’ve tried making this analogy.

 

one last time just for you and then I’m simply going to refer you to previous posts for explanations.

 

This comes in two parts:

 

First:  Corps do not report net income.  Corps are only obligated, by law, to report x amount of income.  Which means they pocket, in many cases, 30-50% income/profit.   

 

Secondly:  The IRS claims upwards of $300B annually (yearly) goes unreported.  Which essentially states thats that CEO’s and Corps are pocketing that money.  Which means money they could share w/ employees.  Which doesn’t count toward a corps net worth if its unreported.

 

Translations:. Corps make TONS more (unreported) money that could go towards their employees.  This money doesn’t come out of the pockets of CEO’s.  These crooks make a salary.   But they’re not working for their measly $350-$500k/yr salary...  they’re in it for the annual 2 million dollar bonus’ or stock options. 

Quote

 

Is this still too complicated for you to comprehend?  Businesses as a group can't be giving out a lot of extra money and SIMULTANEOUSLY be getting even more money back to fund it just because government passed a moronic living wage law.  That doesn't make any fucking sense.

It’s called an economy, ya choad.  

 

More people w/ money = more money in the economy.

 

Less people w/ money = less money in the economy.  

 

Spending what you don’t have = debt.

Quote

 

Of course this is not likely to put (most of) them out of business, because the are not the ones that will be funding your moronic living wages out of their profits.  That is my entire point!  The money will be coming from somewhere else, which you still have not correctly identified.

I have several times.  I refer you to previous ‘IRS & unreported income’ posts.

Quote

 

Okay, even if the food they give out doesn't cost them a single penny, they are still only BREAKING EVEN at best on cash flow in this deal, as I stated above.  And of course this rosy scenario in no way matches reality.

No... they would be a failed business if they continually broke even.  

 

A zero sum game is a loss when you are in business to profit.

Quote

 

I keep asking the question because you still haven't given the correct answer and I have very easily destroyed all the wrong answers you keep giving.

Stop repeating this barrative abd ask questions.  

 

My guess is there is not question, you just like telling others they are avoiding your questions.

 

keep it simple.  More questions, less mental masturbation.  You love poring your thoughts into words and having others read your frustrations.

 

Ask simple, non-deliberately contrived questions.  You use way too much filler.

 

 

Quote

 

Yes, I do quite enjoy humiliating you idiot libs for your ignorance and stupidity.  You are certainly not the first person to give these same wrong answers to my simple questions.  You idiot libs seem to all be singing from the same hymnal, which just so happen to match what most of your liberal masters preach.  I am sure that is just a pure coincidence, and not because you all are being brainwashed by your masters, right?  Lol...

You’re illustrating my point every time you post these verbal brain farts.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

In reference to social programs, you twat waffle.  

What?!?!?  Are you claiming that welfare is not a "social program"???  Okay, fine, I will use the term "social programs" instead of welfare, if that makes you happy.

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

You made the ‘moral’ relations, not me.

 

Also, you saying something is immoral speaks to your moral code, not everyone elses.  You are only the authority of your moral code.  So when you talk about morality, you’re simply spouting your subjective morality.  Which is irrelevant to objective morality.

Learn the difference b/t subjective and objective morality.

Get real.  Don't pretend like you don't know the difference between right and wrong or that it is somehow different for each person in a lame attempt to defend clearly immoral liberal policies.

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

You need a better analogy besides religion.

Okay, fine.  Here is a revised analogy for you-

 

Suppose someone claimed that some activity was immoral because the president said it was.   If that same person later said, "I never once insinuated that the president was a judge of what is moral", do you not see how unbelievably retarded and disconnected with reality that person would seem to be?  Lol...

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Again, 80% of people on social assistance  are in the workforce.

Again, why do you keep bringing up irrelevant statements that have no point?

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Yes.  There are people opposed to taxes as well.  That doesn’t mean its going anywhere.  

But some people being opposed to slavery was your explanation of why it should have been abolished.  So why can't the same reasoning be valid for another immoral activity, such as forcibly stealing from some people just to hand it to other people via government social programs?

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Right.  So what are you asking me... ??

I literally don’t know what the phuck you’re talking about.

 

You’re making up scenarios that don’t exist and are apparently asking me to play a ‘what if’ game in historical context?

Surprise, surprise, an idiot lib that can't seem to comprehend simple logic.  Lol...

 

It is really very simple- I was demonstrating the utter stupidity of your absurd argument that it is okay for government to commit outright theft via social programs because your precious "society" says it is okay, by giving the example of another policy your precious "society" said was okay AT THE TIME IT EXISTED- slavery.  I could have also used a lot of other horrible & evil policies your precious "society" has deemed to be okay AT THE TIME THEY EXISTED.  Like burning women at the stake if they were suspected of being witches, for another example of something your precious "society" allowed in the past.

 

Are you really too damn stupid to see that just because your precious "society" accepts some activity, it is completely meaningless as to whether it is truly good or bad?

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Slavery - bad.  

But how can this be?!?!?  Your precious "society" said it was okay AT THE TIME IT EXISTED.  So how can it be bad if that was the case, based on your idiotic faith in the supposed sound judgement of "society"?

 

22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

 

What are you wanting me to elaborate on? And how are your rants on slavery and nazi germany related to social assistance programs in modern day America?

Whaaa...?

Is this a joke ?   

 

Are you trolling? 

 

I think you’re  trolling.

 

the longer and weirder this convo unfolds, the less sense your making.

Again, it is really very simple- you are pathetically arguing that intelligent conservatives are somehow not ideologically consistent because they are more against some kinds of government spending programs than others by foolishly pretending that there are no significant moral differences between these programs as they are both just examples of government taxing.  I was simply demonstrating that this argument is similar in stupidity to someone claiming that there are no moral differences between killing in self defense and committing murder as they are both just examples of killing people.  Just because 2 types of things are in the same general category does not mean they are morally equivalent.

 

For the umpteenth time, this should be simple enough for even a child to understand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one needs a metaphor that fits socialism perfectly, Socialism is the gargoyle of doubt every franchised of reality follows ancestrally training each ancestor to not accept their position in life is nothing more significant to sustaining the species being eternally sorted apart now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

No one has implied corps give away all their profits.

Remember the time I shared a link offering  over $300B that goes unaccounted for by the IRS annually?  And also that corps only have to report x amount of income, which doesn’t include their total net profit?

Ahhh good times.

 

I can’t wait til you link more articles only touting what corps are obligated to report versus unreported profits.

Apparently you sill haven't learned how to read, as this link was very clearly talking about CEO wages, not corporate profits.  But let's assume you are correct and that all these evil CEOs are massive tax cheats.  Let's go ahead and very generously assume they are really making 100 TIMES what they are reporting and re-check the math-

 

Workers' pay would increase just how much per hour
Only Starbucks workers would walk away with a full extra cent per hour of work if their CEO (Howard Schultz) agreed to hand over his entire paycheck.Here's math.

  1. McDonald's: Total CEO pay ($500,370,666) divided by total number of employees (420,000) = $0.61 increase per hour for each worker.
  2. Starbucks: Total CEO pay ($300,806,192) divided by total number of employees (160,000) = $1.14 increase per hour for each worker.
  3. Walmart: Total CEO pay ($600,214,777) divided by total number of employees (2,200,000) = $0.14 increase per hour for each worker.

 

So even if these evil CEOs are some of the biggest tax cheats in history and you somehow figured out how to distribute all of their real wages to the other workers, it still doesn't come remotely close to paying for your precious living wage laws.

 

Oops, there goes that dumb little ignorant theory, yet again... 

 

Quote

 

1) No one is asking for corps to take Zero anything.  

You seriously cannot be this unbelievably fucking stupid.  Please tell me this is some kind of an act.

 

I never said you asked for them to take zero.  The point is that even in the most extreme possible case, there is still not enough money for your insane little fantasy.  If taking even 100% of the evil CEO's wages are not enough to fund your precious living wages, then obviously taking some smaller % is also not going to be enough either.  Duh.

 

Are you really too damn retarded to comprehend something so amazingly simple?  Lol...

 

Quote

2)  See post directly above ☝️ in how corps would assuage workers.

I saw it, and nothing in there gave anything remotely resembling a rational explanation of this.

 

Quote

I guarantee you’ll ask me again in the next post and I will repat the unreported income and the requisite income corps are only required to report.

 

It’s gonna happen guaranteed.  

 

It’s happened in the last several posts. 

 

And you’ll do it again bcus you’re either a troll or you just like asking the same questions over and over again in different terms.

All you have provided is an estimate of the TOTAL taxes being unreported from everyone in the US.  You have provided absolutely no evidence of how much money a typical employer of unskilled labor is hiding and thus how much they supposedly have available to give to their workers per hour on average, nor how you would supposedly make them pay ANY of their hidden profits to their employees.

 

 

Quote

If you had you’re druthers, you’d allow corps to decide people’s worth.  

 

Which would ultimately amount to indentured servitude, which is basically slave labor. 

 

Thank god for unions and labor laws.

No, this would be impossible without the use of force, which I am totally against.  Without the use of force, employers in general will have no choice but to pay their workers fairly close to the value their labor provides.  Period.  If you think otherwise and that these evil employers really have some magical power that supposedly allows them to pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like, if not for your precious government or unions putting a stop to their dastardly deeds, then let's see you answer this simple question-

 

Why do these evil employers pay ANY non-union workers more than the MW?  If you think employers really have this magical power, then why the hell do they pay any non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

This is yet another example of a simple question I have asked you idiot libs over and over and over and over and over with no rational response.  I wonder why that is?

 

 

Quote

 

I explained this by sticking w/ the origianl gas/oil, convenient store analogy since they’re mutually linked.

Have you ever “demanded” gas prices before?  

 

Have you ever NOT bought gas when you needed it, even if prices were high?

 

Supply & demand largely speaks to popular demand:  Bargin buying, etc... But the American public has yet been able to budge on necessetous demands such as gas/oil.

Completely ignorant nonsense.  Of course consumers reduce their demand for gas if the price is higher.  For example, when the price of gas spiked in the 70's, consumers responded by buying more fuel efficient vehicles on average so would have to buy less gas.  Duh.

 

Do you really not understand that these are called the LAWS of supply and demand, and not the "vague theories"?  Lol...

 

 

Quote

First:  Corps do not report net income.  Corps are only obligated, by law, to report x amount of income.  Which means they pocket, in many cases, 30-50% income/profit. 

Where is your link backing up these percentages?  Or did you just pull them out of your asshole?

 

Quote

It’s called an economy, ya choad.  

 

More people w/ money = more money in the economy.

 

Less people w/ money = less money in the economy.  

 

Spending what you don’t have = debt.

But there is no more money in the economy just because the government passed some moronic living wage law.  You think these laws just magically conjure up more wealth out of thin air like you are pretending?  Lol...

 

Again, how the hell can employers as a group be giving out extra money to their employees and SIMULTANEOUSLY be getting back even more money by those employees spending that money on buying their products???  That doesn't make any fucking sense.

 

Quote

I have several times.  I refer you to previous ‘IRS & unreported income’ posts.

And I have destroyed that moronic BS several times.  So why do you keep posting it?

 

Quote

No... they would be a failed business if they continually broke even.  

Exactly, which is why your dumb little fantasy is more BS.  Employers in general would NOT going to be the ones to fund your precious living wage laws, resulting in them only breaking even, failing, or even losing any significant profit at all, despite what your masters have told you.

 

Any extra money in the pockets of the workers lucky enough to stay employed under a moronic living wage law will get that money from 2 primary sources, neither of which you have correctly identified so far.  Do you want to try yet again?  Feel free to open a book on basic economics for once in your miserable life if you still don't know.  I linked an excellent one earlier in this thread which gives the correct answers.  Who knows, you may actually find that wallowing in gross ignorance and abject stupidity is not nearly as much fun as you currently think it is.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism has never worked , whether it was The Paris commune, Robert Owen New Harmony communes and other American communes, Even the Kibbutz in Israel is going through massive change and introducing a market economy, we know that marxist-leninism is a failure, just look at the former Soviet Union, Mao's China,  Castro's Cuba, North Korea is a Bad wordhole well outside of pyongyang .

African socialism is corrupt, Latin America socialism like Venezuela is not exactly a success story, unless you're a black marketer 

 

The nordic countries are running away from Label of democratic socialism, Denmark Prime Minister insists his country is a market economy, Finland has a conservative government

Sweden is leftist and they advocate capitalism as it contributes to their society.

 

Democratic Socialism in America would be disastrous because America is a heterogeneous society and not all cultures are equal nor will they contribute equally, so how can you have equality ?

 

For those who will label a "racist" for saying that, if you think we are all equals why do we have affirmative action?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

What?!?!?  Are you claiming that welfare is not a "social program"???  Okay, fine, I will use the term "social programs" instead of welfare, if that makes you happy.

Welfare = social program.  

Quote

 

Get real.  Don't pretend like you don't know the difference between right and wrong or that it is somehow different for each person in a lame attempt to defend clearly immoral liberal policies.

So lets unpack this moral conundrum:  

 

You believe a welfare tax to be immoral.  But you’re okay knowing there are people who are dependant on said program to eat or help pay their rent, otherwise they could be destitute.

 

Your moral code:. Taking my money (along w/ millions of others) to help people is immoral.  Don’t take my money to help others.

 

Also your moral code:.  [steps over hungry, homeless guy who is now destitue bcus nighthawk got his way & people who no longer wish to pay for social programs no longer have to]

 

No moral qualms w/ that 👆scenario.

 

Quote

 

Okay, fine.  Here is a revised analogy for you-

 

Suppose someone claimed that some activity was immoral because the president said it was.   If that same person later said, "I never once insinuated that the president was a judge of what is moral", do you not see how unbelievably retarded and disconnected with reality that person would seem to be?  Lol...

I don’t understand your analogies whatsoever.  

 

Lets keep it simple:  What do you base morality on?   What is your starting premise?

Quote

 

Again, why do you keep bringing up irrelevant statements that have no point?

 

But some people being opposed to slavery was your explanation of why it should have been abolished.

My reasoning for slavery being immoral is contingent on the premise of my moral code.  

 

My moral premise begins w/ well-being.  

 

Slavery is against the well-being of the slave.

Quote

 

So why can't the same reasoning be valid for another immoral activity,

Only if its in violation of well-being.

Quote

 

such as forcibly stealing from some people just to hand it to other people via government social programs?

Bcus, as a society, we recognize some people are less fortunate than others.  And in a civilized society, we take it upon ourselves to help our fellow man/woman rather than watching them suffer.

 

Are you starting to see the pattern of well-being woven in the fabric/justification of social programs?

 

In other words, if we left you in charge, we’d have a society infested w/ poor, hungry destitutes.  Your dream utopia merely expands on an all too real problem which is a society of the have and have nots.

Quote

 

Surprise, surprise, an idiot lib that can't seem to comprehend simple logic.  Lol...

 

It is really very simple- I was demonstrating the utter stupidity of your absurd argument that it is okay for government to commit outright theft via social programs because your precious "society" says it is okay, by giving the example of another policy your precious "society" said was okay AT THE TIME IT EXISTED- slavery.

Who else would say its okay if not for society?

 

You keep trying to tie social programs and slavery together as both immoral — It doesn’t work.   We evloved - We progressed.  Slavery was and is immoral.  Always has been, always will be.   The reason we progressed away from slavery is bcus we recognized it was against the well-being of the slave.  

 

The reason we have social programs is bcus we recognized, AS A SOCIETY,  it is against the well-being of society, as a whole, to watch our fellow man/woman suffer.  We also recognize the larger more impactful, more expensive dangers of not having social safety nets.  Otherwise we might have a society riddled w/ disease, famine, crime... much moreso than we already have.

 

If you keep well-being as your baseline premise for all things moral, it will help in the construction of your thought process.

Quote

 

  I could have also used a lot of other horrible & evil policies your precious "society" has deemed to be okay AT THE TIME THEY EXISTED.

And aslo we progressed away from burning witches & anaimal signs.  Why don’t you add that to your dumb list fallacious analogies.

Quote

 

 Like burning women at the stake if they were suspected of being witches, for another example of something your precious "society" allowed in the past.

🤣🤣🤣. BINGO!!  Ya beat me to it by one sentence.  You keep illustrating just how we all have progressed as a society.  

 

I don’t think your analogies are helping you in the slightest.  In fact, you’re helping me make my point.

Quote

 

Are you really too damn stupid to see that just because your precious "society" accepts some activity, it is completely meaningless as to whether it is truly good or bad?

So who decides what what is good or bad?

 

You?

 

And should we all just abide by your subjective morality?

Quote

 

But how can this be?!?!?  Your precious "society" said it was okay AT THE TIME IT EXISTED.

We just went over this...

 

Get your ADD under control.

Quote

 

 So how can it be bad if that was the case, based on your idiotic faith in the supposed sound judgement of "society"?

Bcus it wasn’t right;  Which is why we progressed away from it.

Quote

 

Again, it is really very simple- you are pathetically arguing that intelligent conservatives are somehow not ideologically consistent because they are more against some kinds of government spending programs than others by foolishly pretending that there are no significant moral differences between these programs as they are both just examples of government taxing.  I was simply demonstrating that this argument is similar in stupidity to someone claiming that there are no moral differences between killing in self defense and committing murder as they are both just examples of killing people.  Just because 2 types of things are in the same general category does not mean they are morally equivalent.

Your entire argument against social programs is premised on the notion of theft.    But its no more theft than taxes.  You’re just selectively picking what constitues theft.  

 

Unlike your useless death analogy, intent matters.  The purpose of self-defense is to preserve your well-being.  Someone looking to murder you is in direct conflict w/ your well-being.

 

That’s why your analogy fails.  Bcus we have safety nets to preserve well-being.  Your idea of morality conflicts w/ well-being if your wish is to disband safety nets. Bcus now you have a society riddled w/ people who can’t meet their basic needs now that we live in your ideal society w/ no more safety nets.

 

This ties in perfectly w/ living wage as well... want to get rid of social safety nets?  Pay low wage workers more so they no longer need the assistance of social programs.  

 

Bingo bango bongo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×