Federal minimum wage rate.

[James972]

Skilled labor did in fact go overseas. .

some did but no one disagrees. Do you have any idea what your point is??

 

[cpwill]

But they aren't facts. Skilled labor did in fact go overseas. Minimum wage is still cheaper here.

They are indeed. The value added of low will labor doesn't improve simply because we put a price floor on it. Instead, we price the most needy out of the labor market.

As for the argument that the dirty fereners took er jerbs; robots took most those jobs, because they became cheaper than the price of labor. As a single example, self checkout line started to take off the last time they hiked Federal MW. Within the US, not-automated low skill labor increasingly went to illegal populaces, who were less expensive.


It ain't called the Dismal Science for nothing.

 

[James972]

Minimum wage is still cheaper here.

cheaper than what?? You clean forgot to tell us

 

[Hamish Howl]

cheaper than what?? You clean forgot to tell us

No, I didn't. Your inability to follow a conversation is not my concern.

 

[Hamish Howl]

They are indeed. The value added of low will labor doesn't improve simply because we put a price floor on it. Instead, we price the most needy out of the labor market.

As for the motion that the dirty fereners took er jerbs; actually, robots took most those jobs, because they became cheaper than the price of labor. As a single example, self checkout line started to take off the last time they hiked Federal MW.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

So what's your solution? $0.25 per hour?

 

[cpwill]

So what's your solution? $0.25 per hour?

I would get rid of the MW alltogether, and replace our current, sclerotic, damaging, welfare structure with a negative income tax of 50% of all monies not earned below 200% of the FPL, thereby raising any non-disabled working age individual who is willing to work at all - including volunteer work - out of poverty.


In the meantime, I would think that any time we can bring more people into the workforce whom we have otherwise priced out, that sounds like a good idea. I find the idea that we would make the lives of the poorest amongst us harder for the aesthetic effect egregious.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm a proponent of more robots in fast food joints.

Because they work for free?

 

[gulfman]

Because they work for free?

Because they get the order right

 

[James972]

Because they work for free?

Because robots and machines frustrate the libnazi desire to control everything and make everybody dependent on them.

 

[I'm Supposn]

... Also total bull****.
Buffett DOESN'T pay less in taxes than his employees - that claim was destroyed years ago.
I'm his opposite - Spent much of my career on ships or boats. And swimming.

Warren Buffett never stated that he paid a lesser amount of federal tax upon his individual income. He did state his effective tax rate upon his admittingly great income, was no greater than the rate paid by his secretary upon proportionally, extremely lesser income.

BullsEye, I prefer to believe you were mistaken, rather than deliberately intending to mislead us. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Bullseye]

Warren Buffett never stated that he paid a lesser amount of federal tax upon his individual income. He did state his effective tax rate upon his admittingly great income, was no greater than the rate paid by his secretary upon proportionally, extremely lesser income.

BullsEye, I prefer to believe you were mistaken, rather than deliberately intending to mislead us. Respectfully, Supposn

You are correct - I blindly followed the post I was responding to; by the time I realized Buffett was referring to tax RATE the post was locked. Buffett was still likely wrong unless he pays his secretary six-figure salary.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Because robots and machines frustrate the libnazi desire to control everything and make everybody dependent on them.

James972:

James972, before attempting to prove your statement within post #71, can you try to explain and just briefly support it? What is it that you're contending?
///////////////////////////////////

Regarding post #69, what specifically is within the portion of my statement you didn't quote, that you found to be wrong? How and why do you find “it” wrong?

What's a LibNazi? What's a LibNazi minimum wage as compared to a Canadian or an Australian minimum wage? Compare it to our U.S. Federal minimum wage rate? How do they differ from your LibNazi minimum? ...

 

[I'm Supposn]

You are correct - I blindly followed the post I was responding to; by the time I realized Buffett was referring to tax RATE the post was locked. Buffett was still likely wrong unless he pays his secretary six-figure salary.

BullsEye, refer to Donald Trump vs. Warren Buffett: How Buffett'''s Taxes Prove Trump Wrong | Fortune .

I would suppose that Warren Buffett is highly regarded by the editors of Fortune magazine and I personally do not doubt the man. I would understand if you question the objectivity of Fortune magazine's opinion with regard to Mr. Buffett's character.

[Warren Buffett co-authored the Fortune magazine article describing the Import Certificate proposal; refer to the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”). Its a proposed USA policy. I'm among those considering it to be superior to our existing or any other thus far proposed global trade policy for our nation].

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Bullseye]

BullsEye, refer to Donald Trump vs. Warren Buffett: How Buffett'''s Taxes Prove Trump Wrong | Fortune .

I would suppose that Warren Buffett is highly regarded by the editors of Fortune magazine and I personally do not doubt the man. I would understand if you question the objectivity of Fortune magazine's opinion with regard to Mr. Buffett's character.

[Warren Buffett co-authored the Fortune magazine article describing the Import Certificate proposal; refer to the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”). Its a proposed USA policy. I'm among those considering it to be superior to our existing or any other thus far proposed global trade policy for our nation].

Respectfully, Supposn

The critique I saw on Buffett's claim was he was citing HIS effective tax rate while comparing to his secretary's MARGINAL rate. In other words he didn't consider here deductions and exemptions.

 

[Bullseye]

BullsEye, refer to Donald Trump vs. Warren Buffett: How Buffett'''s Taxes Prove Trump Wrong | Fortune .

I would suppose that Warren Buffett is highly regarded by the editors of Fortune magazine and I personally do not doubt the man. I would understand if you question the objectivity of Fortune magazine's opinion with regard to Mr. Buffett's character.

[Warren Buffett co-authored the Fortune magazine article describing the Import Certificate proposal; refer to the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”). Its a proposed USA policy. I'm among those considering it to be superior to our existing or any other thus far proposed global trade policy for our nation].

Respectfully, Supposn

Problem with your link is that it's dated November of 2016 - Trump didn't become President until January of 2017 so the writer is speculating or projecting rather than reporting factual information.

 

[I'm Supposn]

The critique I saw on Buffett's claim was he was citing HIS effective tax rate while comparing to his secretary's MARGINAL rate. In other words he didn't consider here deductions and exemptions.

Problem with your link is that it's dated November of 2016 - Trump didn't become President until January of 2017 so the writer is speculating or projecting rather than reporting factual information.

Bullseye, Warren Buffett was citing HIS effective tax rate while comparing to his secretary's MARGINAL rate. He was then not considering Donald Trump's opinions.

[I would suppose he now has no greater consideration for Donald Trump's opinions which are less predictable than that of the wind for any particular moment within next years' weather). Our United State's president's opinions and policies are subject to whatever he considers to be most opportune for Donald Trump at any given moment.]

His effective tax rate was no more than that of his secretary's marginal rate after considering his deductions and exemptions. If we exclude deductions and exemptions from considerations, Warren Buffett's effective tax rate was much less than his secretary's marginal tax rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[James972]

The critique I saw on Buffett's claim was he was citing HIS effective tax rate while comparing to his secretary's MARGINAL rate. In other words he didn't consider here deductions and exemptions.

It was all absurd since Buffett pays $10's of millions in taxes while his secretary pays next to nothing. Buffett and his secretary pay the same in the supermarket and should pay the same for govt. There is obvious moral hazard in making most Americans free loaders off the rich. Notice how liberals hate the rich despite living off them?

 

[Bullseye]

Bullseye, Warren Buffett was citing HIS effective tax rate while comparing to his secretary's MARGINAL rate. He was then not considering Donald Trump's opinions.

[I would suppose he now has no greater consideration for Donald Trump's opinions which are less predictable than that of the wind for any particular moment within next years' weather). Our United State's president's opinions and policies are subject to whatever he considers to be most opportune for Donald Trump at any given moment.]

His effective tax rate was no more than that of his secretary's marginal rate after considering his deductions and exemptions. If we exclude deductions and exemptions from considerations, Warren Buffett's effective tax rate was much less than his secretary's marginal tax rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

But that's like comparing apples to cumquats. No one pays their marginal rate, because tax brackets are graduated. They only fair and logical way to compare Buffett and his secretary is to compare effective rate to effective rate. Honestly, I'm not even sure we gain anything by comparing a particular billionaire to a particular working person. Comparing the rates across income quintiles is probably more enlightening.

 

[James972]

They only fair and logical way to compare Buffett and his secretary is to compare effective rate to effective rate.

Keep in mind it was PR anyway. Buffett left all his money to a private foundation precisely so liberal govt could not waste what he spent a life time earning!!

 

[I'm Supposn]

It was all absurd since Buffett pays $10's of millions in taxes while his secretary pays next to nothing. Buffett and his secretary pay the same in the supermarket and should pay the same for govt. There is obvious moral hazard in making most Americans free loaders off the rich. Notice how liberals hate the rich despite living off them?

James972, it's not absurd. Regardless of what you believe that you know of Warren Buffett's and his secretary's income taxes, we're discussing federal income tax rates rather than the amounts of taxes paid.

I won't speculate if due to the degree of your knowledge, or comprehension, or the time you take to read and consider what you've read, you misunderstand or fail to appreciate what you believe to be true.

I'm curious. Do you hate or dislike Warren Buffet? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[James972]

we're discussing federal income tax rates rather than the amounts of taxes paid.

Why do some pay more for govt but not more for a can of soup in a supermarket? Why do the rich get ripped off when they are the most productive people? Imagine the growth if we did not do this to ourselves? Growth or new inventions are why the poor live better than the rich did 75 years ago. So growth must be our objective if we care for the poor.

 

[James972]

I'm curious. Do you hate or dislike Warren Buffet? Respectfully, Supposn

admire his success, but as a big mouth liberal he does a lot of damage. I suspect he has to be liberal to be loved and to conduct business in a liberal, decaying world

 

[Bullseye]

Keep in mind it was PR anyway. Buffett left all his money to a private foundation precisely so liberal govt could not waste what he spent a life time earning!!

Funny thing is that as rates are reduced the burden of paying shifts upward. Libs seem to get all panty-twisted on rates rather than revenues.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Funny thing is that as rates are reduced the burden of paying shifts upward. Libs seem to get all panty-twisted on rates rather than revenues.

Bullseye, the thread's entitled “Federal minimum wage rate”. What revenues are you referring to? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

admire his, [Warren Buffett's] success, but as a big mouth liberal he does a lot of damage. I suspect he has to be liberal to be loved and to conduct business in a liberal, decaying world

James972, I think of him as an altruistic genleman.

Why do some pay more for govt but not more for a can of soup in a supermarket? Why do the rich get ripped off when they are the most productive people? Imagine the growth if we did not do this to ourselves? Growth or new inventions are why the poor live better than the rich did 75 years ago. So growth must be our objective if we care for the poor.

Paul Wellstone was a U.S. Senator from Minnesota. His saying, “We all do better when we all do better” is often quoted.
Too many people consider economics as always a “zero-sum game”;(i.e. one's gain must be at the expense of other's losses). It ain't necessarily so, and it is specifically not so with regard to the U.S. federal minimum wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn