How is that any different from any other case? Did you just discover that businesses do not pay taxes? It is always people who pay them, while businesses simply pass them along to either their consumers AND/OR to their employees! That is why raising (mandatorily via law) a min wage or taxes on businesses universally ends up hurting the very people the “good” people are trying to help in the first place.
That depends on how the tax money is spent, and if the minimum wage is enough to encourage spending beyond the basics.
The money multiplier effect in those cases can result in greater economic growth. This has been seen in Canada with some recent minimum wage increases.
Tax breaks sometimes result in job growth, but most businesses will only hire if they need the staff, not because they have "extra" money. That just gets pocketed, or shared with stock holders.
ask those companies in Cali that closed recently due to 15 bucks min wage. Is it better to pay people 7-10 dollars /hr or ZERO dollars /hr, because the business went bust due margine not being so high to begin with, which (after new minwage law is entroduced) went to 0, . I dont know about you, but I would prefer the former. 7 bucks is infinitely better than 0.
What is wrong with businesses pocketing money, reinvesting it or paying the dividends? That is like to say that you dont need an increase in minimum wage, as the workes will simply go and spend the money anyway... smh
How is that any different from any other case? Did you just discover that businesses do not pay taxes? It is always people who pay them, while businesses simply pass them along to either their consumers AND/OR to their employees! That is why raising (mandatorily via law) a min wage or taxes on businesses universally ends up hurting the very people the “good” people are trying to help in the first place.
That depends on how the tax money is spent, and if the minimum wage is enough to encourage spending beyond the basics.
The money multiplier effect in those cases can result in greater economic growth. This has been seen in Canada with some recent minimum wage increases.
Tax breaks sometimes result in job growth, but most businesses will only hire if they need the staff, not because they have "extra" money. That just gets pocketed, or shared with stock holders.
ask those companies in Cali that closed recently due to 15 bucks min wage. Is it better to pay people 7-10 dollars /hr or ZERO dollars /hr, because the business went bust due margine not being so high to begin with, which (after new minwage law is entroduced) went to 0, . I dont know about you, but I would prefer the former. 7 bucks is infinitely better than 0.
What is wrong with businesses pocketing money, reinvesting it or paying the dividends? That is like to say that you dont need an increase in minimum wage, as the workes will simply go and spend the money anyway... smh
I've been advocating for the elimination of the Federal minimum wage entirely. Private negotiated contracts over compensation are more important to freedom and healthy competitive markets than artificial wage floors or ceilings.
How is that any different from any other case? Did you just discover that businesses do not pay taxes? It is always people who pay them, while businesses simply pass them along to either their consumers AND/OR to their employees! That is why raising (mandatorily via law) a min wage or taxes on businesses universally ends up hurting the very people the “good” people are trying to help in the first place.
That depends on how the tax money is spent, and if the minimum wage is enough to encourage spending beyond the basics.
The money multiplier effect in those cases can result in greater economic growth. This has been seen in Canada with some recent minimum wage increases.
Tax breaks sometimes result in job growth, but most businesses will only hire if they need the staff, not because they have "extra" money. That just gets pocketed, or shared with stock holders.
ask those companies in Cali that closed recently due to 15 bucks min wage. Is it better to pay people 7-10 dollars /hr or ZERO dollars /hr, because the business went bust due margine not being so high to begin with, which (after new minwage law is entroduced) went to 0, . I dont know about you, but I would prefer the former. 7 bucks is infinitely better than 0.
What is wrong with businesses pocketing money, reinvesting it or paying the dividends? That is like to say that you dont need an increase in minimum wage, as the workes will simply go and spend the money anyway... smh
I've been advocating for the elimination of the Federal minimum wage entirely. Private negotiated contracts over compensation are more important to freedom and healthy competitive markets than artificial wage floors or ceilings.
You see, how racist and hateful you are?.. advocating for adults to be adults. That is absolutely devastating and I am gonna report you to the moderators immediately. It was extremely offensive to read. What’s next?. Adult having to suffer consequences of their own decisions? This is the type of stuff that will lead to a society of independent people and we cant have that!
How is that any different from any other case? Did you just discover that businesses do not pay taxes? It is always people who pay them, while businesses simply pass them along to either their consumers AND/OR to their employees! That is why raising (mandatorily via law) a min wage or taxes on businesses universally ends up hurting the very people the “good” people are trying to help in the first place.
That depends on how the tax money is spent, and if the minimum wage is enough to encourage spending beyond the basics.
The money multiplier effect in those cases can result in greater economic growth. This has been seen in Canada with some recent minimum wage increases.
Tax breaks sometimes result in job growth, but most businesses will only hire if they need the staff, not because they have "extra" money. That just gets pocketed, or shared with stock holders.
ask those companies in Cali that closed recently due to 15 bucks min wage. Is it better to pay people 7-10 dollars /hr or ZERO dollars /hr, because the business went bust due margine not being so high to begin with, which (after new minwage law is entroduced) went to 0, . I dont know about you, but I would prefer the former. 7 bucks is infinitely better than 0.
What is wrong with businesses pocketing money, reinvesting it or paying the dividends? That is like to say that you dont need an increase in minimum wage, as the workes will simply go and spend the money anyway... smh
I've been advocating for the elimination of the Federal minimum wage entirely. Private negotiated contracts over compensation are more important to freedom and healthy competitive markets than artificial wage floors or ceilings.
You see, how racist and hateful you are?.. advocating for adults to be adults. That is absolutely devastating and I am gonna report you to the moderators immediately. It was extremely offensive to read. What’s next?. Adult having to suffer consequences of their own decisions? This is the type of stuff that will lead to a society of independent people and we cant have that!
Now *this* is the funniest way to start Election Day: first it was 13,000 jobs and that got revised to 3,000 "knowledge-based workers" and now even *that* looks imperiled.
And all at a hefty cost to Wisconsin voters. For those of you old enough (which means, no one), this will play out like a reboot of "Gung Ho," only the Chinese version.
It is not that funny. This is outcome fo exporting jobs for years while not looking into innovation and training in the US. Thank for this to ingenius idea of saving by offshoring by managment wave by wave for last decades "to save". These people are to come to transfer knowledge and provide training that was lost. Not that nobody wanted those jobs. Offshoring brings lack of interest in certain jobs and skill growth as sideffect because you start competeing with hungry people that in their economies will do this for penny. However, those who cannot afford to get skill and compete with inexpesive laborers in their economies (because they are way different) cannot also afford those products. It is vicious circle and I will not mention how some "geniuses" want to fix it (frequently with taxes).
Now *this* is the funniest way to start Election Day: first it was 13,000 jobs and that got revised to 3,000 "knowledge-based workers" and now even *that* looks imperiled.
And all at a hefty cost to Wisconsin voters. For those of you old enough (which means, no one), this will play out like a reboot of "Gung Ho," only the Chinese version.
It is not that funny. This is outcome fo exporting jobs for years while not looking into innovation and training in the US. Thank for this to ingenius idea of saving by offshoring by managment wave by wave for last decades "to save". These people are to come to transfer knowledge and provide training that was lost. Not that nobody wanted those jobs. Offshoring brings lack of interest in certain jobs and skill growth as sideffect because you start competeing with hungry people that in their economies will do this for penny. However, those who cannot afford to get skill and compete with inexpesive laborers in their economies (because they are way different) cannot also afford those products. It is vicious circle and I will not mention how some "geniuses" want to fix it (frequently with taxes).
Now *this* is the funniest way to start Election Day: first it was 13,000 jobs and that got revised to 3,000 "knowledge-based workers" and now even *that* looks imperiled.
And all at a hefty cost to Wisconsin voters. For those of you old enough (which means, no one), this will play out like a reboot of "Gung Ho," only the Chinese version.
Good. They will work here and PAY TAXES HERE. Something tells me they will get paid (( SLIGHTLY )) more than just 20-30k a year, which means they will be in the group who actually pays 97% of all income taxes, unlike the bottom 50% of taxpayers who only pay only 3% of all income tax paid by all who work in the US.
Oh, you mean the 50% that is comprised of seniors, vets, and those whose poverty income puts them below the income tax threshold.
The narrative of this segment just being people kicking back enjoying the good life sans taxes is a myth. Being too old, too poor, or too injured to pay income tax is not a benefit to that demographic.
Yep, that is exactly what I mean. Although, vets are not the main part of that group. Mostly people with low wages. My point also, is that those people should not be dictating the top most where to spend their money, if they are the ones TAKING a ride.
Also, they are not "tax incentives". They are simply lower taxes = you simply take away less from the business. Because you sound like you give a business someone else's money so they could come over and build stuff. In reality, you let them keep more of their money and call it an incentive. Talking about newspeak ...
This is the one thing that gets me that most and people just can't wrap their heads around it.
WI did not "give" Foxconn any money. They just said "if you build here, we will tax you less". So they still are making money compared to if Foxconn had not built there, but just not taking in as much taxes.
People be all like "We gave Foxscamm $3 billizillion dollaz!" No, you gave Foxconn nothing but tax breaks. Had Foxconn built elsewhere they would pay taxes elsewhere and brought jobs elsewhere.
Yeah, most people have no clue about this, All states and cities do the exact same thing to attract companies to bring jobs to an area.
I worked for a start-up and founders went to the local governments and asked for a tax break to help the company to build a new 500,000 SqFt design and manufacturing facility, all but the local school board got on board (which was the largest tax). The head of the school board accused our CFO of trying to bribe the school board, he use those words in a public meeting. Part of the deal was the company would give the school all the old computers and install a start of the are network and provide IT support in exchange for the tax break. The CFO came back, told everyone at the company what happen, and that fall the school board was up for re-election and the most of the people at the company lived in the school district and we voted out the school board. The new board agreed to the deal and 2 years later the company was bought out for $4B and the CFO returned to the school board and gave them a $30M check as thank you for the tax break.
Also the company moves 1000's of high paying jobs into the area, we paid local and school taxes, we bough homes and paid property taxes and we all shopped in the area. When the company was bought out most of us all had stock options and paid taxes on the capitals gains. The local government and school was making lots of money that was for sure.
People did a good job with that board member. This is the type of people that should not be running anything, let alone schools ((
Comments
What is wrong with businesses pocketing money, reinvesting it or paying the dividends? That is like to say that you dont need an increase in minimum wage, as the workes will simply go and spend the money anyway... smh
I guess that's all you can do when you don't at least try.
My point also, is that those people should not be dictating the top most where to spend their money, if they are the ones TAKING a ride.