Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

My main problem with gun control is that while yes, Japan has low gun violence and all that, but it's a COMPLETELY different culture and mindset than us.

Yeah, we do what Japan does, cool. But criminals here will ALWAYS find a way to get a weapon, always, always, always. Now I'm not saying, yeah, concealed weapons fuck yeah! But still, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we should just use Japan as our model for gun laws

Does the UK have a different culture than us? Norway? Germany? etc.

You can say it is too far gone. And you can't change the laws because of all the gun nuts. But to say that it wouldn't work here is silly.

 

[HyperionX]

My main problem with gun control is that while yes, Japan has low gun violence and all that, but it's a COMPLETELY different culture and mindset than us.

Yeah, we do what Japan does, cool. But criminals here will ALWAYS find a way to get a weapon, always, always, always. Now I'm not saying, yeah, concealed weapons fuck yeah! But still, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we should just use Japan as our model for gun laws

You know racism was once deeply ingrained into US culture, but now its highly marginalized. Change the gun culture of the US probably isn't as hard you make it out to be. A sustained and motivated movement to ban or restrict guns could probably, within a few decades, dramatically change the gun culture within this country.

It should also be noted that the Internet gives much more power to the the anti-gun groups and takes away a lot of power from pro-gun groups. It used to be, even as recent as Columbine, that mass shootings were always something that happened to someone else, and they never could imagine it happen to them or a close relationship. But with twitter and facebook these days, you can immediately relate to the people who got shot, and it feels much closer as well.

 

[TacticalFox88]

You know racism was once deeply ingrained into US culture, but now its highly marginalized. Change the gun culture of the US probably isn't as hard you make it out to be. A sustained and motivated movement to ban or restrict guns could probably, within a few decades, dramatically change the gun culture within this country.

Getting rid of NRA is a start.

 

[HyperionX]

Getting rid of NRA is a start.

The ridiculous amounts of money flowing into politics does have one surprising benefit: lobbying groups that once had enormous power now have too little money to maintain their previously level of influence. The NRA, I agree, does need to go, but even if it stays it would not have the same level of power as it use to have.

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

I am pretty lucky that my parents live within easy driving distance of UCLA and are able and willing to let me live there while I'm going to school. Not having to pay for a dorm or apartment will make a serious difference.

You can stretch the definition of "easy driving distance" pretty far, too. I was willing to commute from Woodland Hills. The parents of one of my friends told her that they would only pay her tuition if she stayed at home in Encino, so she made that work. Another stayed at home from Grenada Hills.

Saving money on the Bruin commute is no joke.

 

[Oblivion]

You can stretch the definition of "easy driving distance" pretty far, too. I was willing to commute from Woodland Hills. The parents of one of my friends told her that they would only pay her tuition if she stayed at home in Encino, so she made that work. Another stayed at home from Grenada Hills.

Saving money on the Bruin commute is no joke.

I live in Northridge.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Fucking shit!

Marriage Amendment is leading 52-37 in Minnesota. Fucking morons. Only 56% of Democrats oppose it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Fucking shit!

Marriage Amendment is leading 52-37 in Minnesota. Fucking morons. Only 56% of Democrats oppose it.

Minnesota gave us Bachmann. I'm not that surprised.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Romney buying twitter followers?

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/wx2pk/look_at_the_names_and_handles_of_mitt_romneys/

 

[Loudninja]

I am soooo bored.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Nice site

http://romneyjustmade.com/

 

[empty vessel]

I do think you're a bit too glib about currency debasement. Frankly, that's surprising from you since currency debasement (and accompanying inflation) hits the lower and middle classes the hardest.

I think the opposite. That people are too glib about unemployment and its costs. And that people's fear of inflation is entirely unrealistic and without foundation, meaning they do not understand the conditions under which inflation occurs.

It's true that after two rounds of QE and Operation Twist we haven't seen core inflation rise, but that's due to the new money offsetting the collapse of liabilities in the shadow banking system. Eventually those positions unwind, and if QE (or other debasement) continues, you will have inflation at a rate that will be felt by the lower and middle classes (as it will likely accompany wage stagnation).

I don't think so:

The Cleveland Federal Reserve say that its: "… latest estimate of 10-year expected inflation is 1.38 percent. In other words, the public currently expects the inflation rate to be less than 2 percent on average over the next decade." So the data is not suggesting that the the US inflation rate is about to explode over the next decade despite the massive increase in the Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet as a result of its mis-guided attempts to revitalise the US economy via quantitative easing.

All QE did was add to reserves, and reserves do not circulate in the economy, nor do they have any real effect on lending, because banks do not lend reserves. The whole operation is based on a misunderstanding of banking. That, or the programs are merely intended to manipulate expectations.

See also: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/...ing-and-commodity-prices-an-mmt-approach.html

In any event, I don't advocate monetary policy solutions to sagging aggregate demand, because I understand them to be ineffective. I advocate fiscal solutions: deficit spending.

The US does have a bit in common with Zim in that we have a large trade deficit, and currency debasement will drive the prices of our imports up. We're obviously in a better position than Zimbabwe (or Greece), and I don't see hyperinflation as a realistic outcome, but there's some pain ahead if we continue to think we can inflate our problems away.

Using government spending to strengthen aggregate demand is not inflationary, nor do I advocate "inflating" anything anyway. An injection of dollars into the economy can strengthen aggregate demand and improve the economy without any inflation. That is because inflation is produced only when an economy like the US's is "maxed" out. Otherwise, the injection of money goes towards putting currently idle capital and labor to work rather than raising prices. Consider: as a producer, if you have an idle factory because of a poor economy in which people are spending less money, and then you see demand for your products pick up, are you going to respond to that rise in demand simply by raising prices or are you going to hire some employees and put your idle factory to work to try and meet that demand?

You are correct that an injection of money will cause imports to cost more, but imports make up only about 15% of the economy (Zimbabwe's was about 65%). And American exports will become more attractive.

Zimbabwe's inflation was caused first and foremost by a sheer lack of economic productivity following the war and ill-implemented land reform that caused food production to fall off a cliff. Manufacturing also fell like a rock. The, effectively, sheer lack of goods and services available for purchase is the root of its hyperinflation. All this to say, the case has nothing really to do with whether the US can withstand some deficit spending.

 

[RDreamer]

Nice site

http://romneyjustmade.com/

Who actually made and/or sponsors that site, though? It's pretty fascinating and telling, but that site's existence actually does play into the narrative that the left is attacking Romney simply for being rich.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Who actually made and/or sponsors that site, though? It's pretty fascinating and telling, but that site's existence actually does play into the narrative that the left is attacking Romney simply for being rich.

Did you see the whole site?

Mitt Romney made his millions as head of investment company Bain Capital which took over businesses and laid off off thousands of workers. Under Romney's direction, Bain would inject money into companies that were on the brink of bankruptcy and then Bain would pay itself back by taking out a loan under the new company, leaving Bain with no risk if the company ended up going bankrupt. Since 2007 he has been living off his investments in Wall Street firms with investments and holdings in tax-havens like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Though Romney claims to be an advocate for the middle class, he supports major tax cuts that would put over $7.8 trillion back in the pockets of corporations and the top 0.01 % of wage earners like himself.

 

[RDreamer]

Did you see the whole site?

Yeah, but really the whole site's purpose is to shock you with simply how much he's making. Now, if that information was at the top of the page, saying basically he made his money doing shitty things, and this is how much he made doing those shitty things and that's what's appalling, then I'd buy it. As it stands, it's just shocking you by how much he's making, and then kind of throwing on that point at the bottom to justify it.

Now, I personally would love to have a conversation about the fact that I do personally believe he's making far to fucking much. I personally don't think anyone needs that kind of money and that kind of inequality really does royally screw things up in the country. But, that doesn't play very well in general to the general public.

 

[empty vessel]

Yeah, but really the whole site's purpose is to shock you with simply how much he's making.

For my part, I'm fine with that. People should be shocked with how much certain people make, regardless of how they make it, because it is ridiculous. Having that much income is an assertion of social worth and entitlement. We should be asking if we as a society are really as indebted to Mitt Romney as he claims. (And, keep in mind, that is all money is--a claim that society owes you something.)

 

[RDreamer]

For my part, I'm fine with that. People should be shocked with how much certain people make, regardless of how they make it, because it is ridiculous. Having that much income is an assertion of social worth and entitlement. We should be asking if we as a society are really as indebted to Mitt Romney as he claims. (And, keep in mind, that is all money is--a claim that society owes you something.)

Oh, yeah, I'm totally fine with it, too, and I totally agree with you. As I said, I don't think we as a society does any good to ourselves by allowing someone to have that much money. But I was just wondering who was actually sponsoring the site, because if it was any sort of official Obama campaign or SuperPAC type thing it'd be a shitty move. America as a general electorate just isn't ready for that sort of conversation, unfortunately. There are other things to do before that, and kind of lay the groundwork for that type of conversation, I think.

 

[RDreamer]

You guys see this: Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

 

[Chichikov]

You guys see this: Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

Wait, is there a serious push for a territorial tax system?
Has this country lost its mind?

 

[AlteredBeast]

You guys see this: Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

Incredibly brazen.

Sounds like someone is going to be the next economy czar.

 

[RustyNails]

You guys see this: Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

Watch as Rep. Joe Barton apologizes to that corporation

 

[Chumly]

You guys see this: Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

Just sad

 

[Measley]

You guys see this: Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

Where's Bane when you need him?

 

[RDreamer]

Weird, Mitt Romney's twitter is getting a sudden influx of likely bot account followers on twitter. His campaign is claiming they have no idea what's going on, too.

 

[Tamanon]

Weird, Mitt Romney's twitter is getting a sudden influx of likely bot account followers on twitter. His campaign is claiming they have no idea what's going on, too.

Yeah, I looked at a few earlier, it was weird, they'd be following Romney and some Playboy/rap video vixen.

I wonder if 4chan is just goofing on folks.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's a botnet. I get spam requests all the time, what they're trying to do is hope you don't block them, so their profile is linked from yours, therefore hoping their links get pushed upwards in search engine results.

 

[AlteredBeast]

It's a botnet. I get spam requests all the time, what they're trying to do is hope you don't block them, so their profile is linked from yours, therefore hoping their links get pushed upwards in search engine results.

What is funny is the insinuation that the campaign would buy twitter followers, and then on top of that, ones that follow playmates...

 

[RDreamer]

What is funny is the insinuation that the campaign would buy twitter followers, and then on top of that, ones that follow playmates...

lol, yeah it'd be pretty moronic to buy followers. He'd get found out almost instantly. Still, I thought it was an interesting political tidbit that something was going on with his twitter account.

 

[Suikoguy]

What is funny is the insinuation that the campaign would buy twitter followers, and then on top of that, ones that follow playmates...

It's the sad state of advertising/hits based online media. Which will garner more web hits? "Romney's twitter has sudden influx of new followers" or "Romney's campaign buying twitter followers?"

 

[RDreamer]

Oh yeah, I found that clip of Chris Hayes the other day

"Look, the taxes of high -- of extremely wealthy people are bizarre, strange and alienating," MSNBC's Chris Hayes said on "The Last Word" tonight. "And the reason is that they pay people a lot of money to game the system. That's explicitly what it is. And the more of that you see -- literally if you chose someone with Mitt Romney's net worth at random and looked at their tax returns, they would look crazy. You wouldn't be able to understand them. They would have all sort of bizarrely constituted corporations incorporated in the Cayman Islands. They might have a Swiss bank account to bet against the dollar. They would have all these things."

"What's so remarkable to me about the story is that the embarrassment here isn't personal," Hayes observed. "The embarrassment is about what this says about how the entire system functions. This is how the system functions. We no longer have the ability in this country to really tax people at the top. And that is the existential statement about the strength of the American state which is: Can you actually tax the wealthiest people in your society? If you can't, if you can't like Greece couldn't, we see how that goes."

"Societies that are in decline or low on the development index have a very hard time extracting money, taxing money from the elites in their society. And that is the direction which we are headed and that is what is represented in the Mitt Romney tax return," he concluded.

I really thought he had a great observation there, and a great point about the whole tax return thing.

 

[Dram]

Romney Plans Foreign Trip, Audition as US Leader

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/romney-plans-foreign-trip-audition-us-leader-16822593#.UAsqzKAVrGg

Mitt Romney auditions on the international stage next week as he travels to England, Israel and Poland looking to establish credibility as a potential commander in chief in his challenge to President Barack Obama.

For the Republican presidential hopeful — a former private equity executive and Massachusetts governor with little formal experience overseas — it's a chance to demonstrate competence in settings often occupied by presidents. He'll hold formal meetings with foreign leaders, give public speeches and visit historic sites.

Aides say it's a chance for the candidate to forge links with strong U.S. allies and show that he'll stand up for shared values.

There's also risk: Romney, sometimes prone to misstatements, faces higher stakes wading into delicate diplomatic disputes than he does on the more familiar campaign trail at home. And executing a complicated trip through three countries over a weeklong span presents the most difficult logistical challenge Romney's campaign has yet faced.

The centerpiece of the trip is a politically delicate visit to Israel, where he meets with top leaders who are closing in on a critical decision about whether to launch a military strike on Iran that is opposed by the Obama administration. The relationship with Israel and the question of what to do about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions represent one of the starkest contrasts between Obama and Romney, who mostly has defined his foreign policy largely in terms of his opponent.

"If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," Romney said last year at a GOP primary debate focused on foreign policy.

The trip will also allow him to reach out to Jewish voters in the U.S. — and also to evangelical Christians, a critical portion of the Republican base traditionally zealous about protecting the Jewish state.

For Romney, the trip will highlight an area where polls show he lags behind his Democratic opponent. A CBS/New York Times poll this week gave Obama a 47 percent to 40 percent lead over Romney on which candidate Americans think would better handle foreign policy.

Romney plans to outline his foreign policy vision in a speech Tuesday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev., before flying to London and the Olympic Games. He goes to Israel from there and finishes in Poland. While abroad, he plans major speeches in Jerusalem and Warsaw, though advisers say he'll steer clear of outlining specific policy proposals in those addresses.

 

[Jackson50]

My main problem with gun control is that while yes, Japan has low gun violence and all that, but it's a COMPLETELY different culture and mindset than us.

Yeah, we do what Japan does, cool. But criminals here will ALWAYS find a way to get a weapon, always, always, always. Now I'm not saying, yeah, concealed weapons fuck yeah! But still, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we should just use Japan as our model for gun laws

I didn't see anyone propose we emulate Japan. And even if Japan's policy were infeasible, there are other states with reasonable restrictions on firearms we should imitate.

Fucking shit!

Marriage Amendment is leading 52-37 in Minnesota. Fucking morons. Only 56% of Democrats oppose it.

Would you provide a source, please?

Romney Plans Foreign Trip, Audition as US Leader

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/romney-plans-foreign-trip-audition-us-leader-16822593#.UAsqzKAVrGg

Romney's a laughable lightweight on foreign policy. He's embarrassed himself in nearly every instance he's commented on the topic. Of course, Israel's on the itinerary. And the UK provides a safe haven to extol our allies while criticizing Obama for abandoning them. Poland is obviously a venue to castigate Obama on Iran and reaffirm his fatuous BMD policy. I have the utmost faith he'll embarrass himself again.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Fucking shit!

Marriage Amendment is leading 52-37 in Minnesota. Fucking morons. Only 56% of Democrats oppose it.

If that's a surveyusa poll, it's probably junk. They produced a bunch of wackiness in MN Dayton vs. Emmer last election.

PPP's last poll had it trailing 49-43 and also, ballots cast with no vote on the amendment will count as No. Every indicator is that it'll fail. I'm more concerned about voter ID, presidential is never close but Franken and Dayton won by slim margins.

 

[Kosmo]

Oh yeah, I found that clip of Chris Hayes the other day



I really thought he had a great observation there, and a great point about the whole tax return thing.

This is why it always amazes me when Democrats, who are usually the ones whining about people "paying their fair share", oppose a simpler tax system simply to protect the votes they get from people that don't pay any federal income tax. It would be interesting to see what the projections would be on a tax system as simple as this:

10% on everything up to $125K ($250K for a couple)
20% on everything over that up to $1M
30% on everything over $1M
Still allow people to write off mortgage interest, but that's it (no write-offs for dinations, etc.)

Throw capital gains in there and treat them the same as regular income, which closes the loophole on CEOs taking $1 salaries and getting vast amounts of stock, which is taxed at a lower rate.

I'm not saying these are ideal numbers, just an example. Both sides would opposed this, however, both for stupid political reasons (Dems: "You can't tax the poor!"; Repubs: "That's raising the capital gains tax for large investors!").

 

[HyperionX]

I have no problem with everyone paying more taxes. Just as long as the rich pays the most and the poor don't get unbearable tax increases, along with tax credits to allow for basic needs.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I have no problem with everyone paying more taxes. Just as long as the rich pays the most and the poor don't get unbearable tax increases, along with tax credits to allow for basic needs.

sounds good. We just fixed the tax code.

*Flashbulbs*
*Spinning newspapers*
*fame and immortality*

 

[RDreamer]

This is why it always amazes me when Democrats, who are usually the ones whining about people "paying their fair share", oppose a simpler tax system simply to protect the votes they get from people that don't pay any federal income tax. It would be interesting to see what the projections would be on a tax system as simple as this:

10% on everything up to $125K ($250K for a couple)
20% on everything over that up to $1M
30% on everything over $1M
Still allow people to write off mortgage interest, but that's it (no write-offs for dinations, etc.)

Throw capital gains in there and treat them the same as regular income, which closes the loophole on CEOs taking $1 salaries and getting vast amounts of stock, which is taxed at a lower rate.

I'm not saying these are ideal numbers, just an example. Both sides would opposed this, however, both for stupid political reasons (Dems: "You can't tax the poor!"; Repubs: "That's raising the capital gains tax for large investors!").

I realize those might be numbers you pulled out of your ass, but yeah I'd definitely be against those particular brackets. My gut instinct says 30% above $1M just isn't enough. I'd say maybe 40%, and then another cut off above 2 or 3M for 50 or 60%. My gut instinct also says below the poverty line needs to be almost nothing, if not actually nothing.

I wouldn't be particularly opposed to a mostly simpler tax system, though I think we would miss certain things. I think tax breaks for certain good activities are a good thing to keep, and they kind of go against a simple system like that. Stuff like tax breaks for children and stuff aren't really bad things.

Personally I don't think our tax system would be too terrible with a few tweaks. I think the top rates definitely needs to be raised, and I think capital gains need to be treated like normal wages. Capital gains are a large part of the problem that Chris was talking about. The other large problem, offshoring of money, I think wouldn't be solved with just a simpler tax system. You really have to police that sort of thing either way.

Offshoring and just our corporate tax stuff... I think the real problems aren't really as much in the individual taxes. I think it's the corporate tax rates that are the problem. We have one of the highest rates in the world... yet we have one of the lowest effective rates. That's pretty fucking screwy. It just rewards those with great accountants (and boy does it reward them!). So big corporations get off with pretty well near no taxes, and smaller businesses get kind of screwed. We really need to lower that rate a bit, and completely gut the system of all of its loopholes. The problem with that, I think, comes with the current republican stonewalling. When you have an entire party signing stuff like Grover Norquist's tax pledge stuff like this just can't be done. Sure, they'll let you lower the overall rate, but then what? They classify closing loopholes as raising taxes. None of them would do it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Minnesota gave us Bachmann. I'm not that surprised.

Quoting this separately because it deserves it.

This is Rep. Keith Ellison from MN-05, Bachmann's neighboring district, and the first Muslim ever elected into Congress.

Minnesota didn't give us Bachmann. Minnesota's 6th congressional district gave us Bachmann, and "us" includes the rest of Minnesota. Believe me, if Michele Bachmann ever ran for a statewide position, it would be a bigger blowout than Obama vs. Alan Keyes.

 

[tranciful]

people that don't pay any federal income tax

I never understood this argument beyond people needing an excuse to scream class warfare. They pay payroll taxes (which are supposed to go to medicare/ss, sure, but they actually go to all sorts of other things). Among others, they pay sales taxes and fuel taxes. They have skin in the game. It's not like these poor people have extra cash laying around -- they spend almost all their money, so increasing their taxes will just hurt their spending capability and therefor directly decrease general consumer demand in the economy.

 

[RDreamer]

I never understood this argument beyond people needing an excuse to scream class warfare. They pay payroll taxes (which are supposed to go to medicare/ss, sure, but they actually go to all sorts of other things). Among others, they pay sales taxes and fuel taxes. They have skin in the game. It's not like these poor people have extra cash laying around -- they spend almost all their money, so increasing their taxes will just hurt their spending capability and therefor directly decrease general consumer demand in the economy.

Honestly it's just a distraction by politicians to change the subject. I'm not entirely sure why people like Kosmo fall for it.

I think at the very least you absolutely can't tax people below the poverty line.

I've also been kind of playing with the idea of minimum wage being tied to that poverty line, too. I think minimum wage should really be, for one person, what we deem the poverty line. I guess in my eyes if you're working 40 hours a week for someone you should at least be there. There really shouldn't be an excuse to be under that if you're working.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I've also been kind of playing with the idea of minimum wage being tied to that poverty line, too. I think minimum wage should really be, for one person, what we deem the poverty line. I guess in my eyes if you're working 40 hours a week for someone you should at least be there. There really shouldn't be an excuse to be under that if you're working.

The fact that this isn't the case is kind of baffling.

Someone can work 40 hours a week as a McDonald's cashier for 48 weeks out of the year and still fall below the poverty line (considering federal/state taxes), as well as not receiving health insurance. And that's if they're living by themselves.

But I guess conservatives would just tell them to pull up the bootstraps and work those extra four weeks, and then go to a repeal Obamacare rally.

 

[RDreamer]

The fact that this isn't the case is kind of baffling.

Someone can work 40 hours a week as a McDonald's cashier for 48 weeks out of the year and still fall below the poverty line (considering federal/state taxes), as well as not receiving health insurance. And that's if they're living by themselves.

But I guess conservatives would just tell them to pull up the bootstraps and work those extra four weeks, and then go to a repeal Obamacare rally.

I'm not sure I understand it either. I mean if you're working isn't that good? We should give that incentive to people. If you work what we deem "full-time" you should really be what we deem to be above the "poverty line." I mean really if you think about it these words don't have much meaning if that's not what's actually happening. Poverty should mean you're not fully working, and full time should be the time you need to fully put in in order to be... well... not fucking poor.

I mean right now there's less incentive. If you know you have to work an ungodly amount of hours at a shitty job and even then you're not even going to be above what our nation calls poor, then why even fucking bother? I know, bootstraps, bootstraps... but still, conservatives like to give working incentives. Isn't a guarantee that you won't be poor if you're working a pretty goddamned good incentive or am I just delusional?

 

[tranciful]

I'm not sure I understand it either. I mean if you're working isn't that good? We should give that incentive to people. If you work what we deem "full-time" you should really be what we deem to be above the "poverty line." I mean really if you think about it these words don't have much meaning if that's not what's actually happening. Poverty should mean you're not fully working, and full time should be the time you need to fully put in in order to be... well... not fucking poor.

I mean right now there's less incentive. If you know you have to work an ungodly amount of hours at a shitty job and even then you're not even going to be above what our nation calls poor, then why even fucking bother? I know, bootstraps, bootstraps... but still, conservatives like to give working incentives. Isn't a guarantee that you won't be poor if you're working a pretty goddamned good incentive or am I just delusional?

If a company can afford to hire Bob at $9 but the minimum wage is $10, Bob loses out on a job.

That's the basic argument against minimum wage. Personally I haven't done enough research on this topic to have a strong opinion either way.

 

[Suikoguy]

I think at the very least you absolutely can't tax people below the poverty line.

Yes, that would work.

Basically a poverty line is established and the tax is 0% to that point for everybody.

That I would agree too.

If a company can afford to hire Bob at $9 but the minimum wage is $10, Bob loses out on a job.

That's the basic argument against minimum wage. Personally I haven't done enough research on this topic to have a strong opinion either way.

It's not quite that simple, because the model assumes the economy works the same without the job existing.

Edit: Also what RDreamer says below.

 

[Oblivion]

Oh yeah, I found that clip of Chris Hayes the other day



I really thought he had a great observation there, and a great point about the whole tax return thing.

Yup, was gonna type that up the other day but forgot.

He also had a good segment today on Romney taking Obama's words out of context about that building business thing and juxtaposing it next to Romney sucking on the federal teat to fund the Olympics. I hope more people keep noting this.

 

[RDreamer]

If a company can afford to hire Bob at $9 but the minimum wage is $10, Bob loses out on a job.

That's the basic argument against minimum wage. Personally I haven't done enough research on this topic to have a strong opinion either way.

Yeah, I realize that's the argument, but that argument can go ad infinitum until we have no minimum wage at all. You have to draw the line somewhere... or at least that's what the minimum wage is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a line drawn in the sand saying ok, we realize we're losing out on some of the people below this line working for less, but at the same time we're going to gain more people working for more, and people get a guaranteed better way of life. I just personally think that line in the sand should be drawn at least at the poverty line.

Edit: Actually I'm looking up the poverty line right now, and I guess it's way lower than what I thought. Kind of invalidates most of my argument, lol. But looking at it, it looks like if you pin things to between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, that's about what I was thinking. Or possibly pin it to 133% of the 2 person household line.

 

[AntoneM]

Yeah, I realize that's the argument, but that argument can go ad infinitum until we have no minimum wage at all. You have to draw the line somewhere... or at least that's what the minimum wage is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a line drawn in the sand saying ok, we realize we're losing out on some of the people below this line working for less, but at the same time we're going to gain more people working for more, and people get a guaranteed better way of life. I just personally think that line in the sand should be drawn at least at the poverty line.

Edit: Actually I'm looking up the poverty line right now, and I guess it's way lower than what I thought. Kind of invalidates most of my argument, lol. But looking at it, it looks like if you pin things to between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, that's about what I was thinking. Or possibly pin it to 133% of the 2 person household line.

Yeah, I was gonna say, poverty line is already lower than minimum wage (full time).

 

[RDreamer]

Yeah, I was gonna say, poverty line is already lower than minimum wage (full time).

I think I was thinking about the 200% line. I must have looked up that number for something at some point recently, so that's what was in my mind.

I guess now I should look up how exactly they calculate those lines, anyway, since I'm on the topic and curious

 

[Byakuya769]

I never understood this argument beyond people needing an excuse to scream class warfare. They pay payroll taxes (which are supposed to go to medicare/ss, sure, but they actually go to all sorts of other things). Among others, they pay sales taxes and fuel taxes. They have skin in the game. It's not like these poor people have extra cash laying around -- they spend almost all their money, so increasing their taxes will just hurt their spending capability and therefor directly decrease general consumer demand in the economy.

Poor people need to pay for the programs built to help them because they're poor!

 

[tranciful]

Yeah, I realize that's the argument, but that argument can go ad infinitum until we have no minimum wage at all. You have to draw the line somewhere... or at least that's what the minimum wage is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a line drawn in the sand saying ok, we realize we're losing out on some of the people below this line working for less, but at the same time we're going to gain more people working for more, and people get a guaranteed better way of life. I just personally think that line in the sand should be drawn at least at the poverty line.

I guess it's just important to at least acknowledge that raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically raise the amount of money available to pay people -- at least at first, I'd assume raising the minimum wage would typically mean companies that don't have excess capital can't afford to have as many people on payroll if they depend on minimum wage positions because it'd simply cost more to keep the same number of people. I probably lean toward raising it because I think boosting the mid-low/middle class is imperative, but like I said, there's more research I need to do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terrance-heath/minimum-wage_b_1690277.html makes a case for some of the unlikely benefits of raising it.