Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you may be confusing the argument. All things being equal the wealthy pay less under a flat tax. Now it can be argued whether a flat tax w/o deductions would cost the wealthy more then the current system, but if you take a flat tax w/o deductions against a graduated tax w/o deductions the rich will pay less under the flat tax assuming you were trying to haul in the same amount of money.
About minimum wage most of the court battles I know of are about state minimum wage law, though federal minimum wage is predicated on the interstate commerce clause which has been interpreted very broadly by courts.
How is 35% less than 25%?
And yes, when I say flat tax, I mean 0, nadda deductions.
The feds have no authority to regulate intra state commerce. A federal min. wage law is only constitutional if it applies solely to businesses engaged in inter state commerce.
Since most business of any size are involved in interstate commerce either by sending or receiving goods and services from other states they de facto end up complying with the law.
And yes, when I say flat tax, I mean 0, nadda deductions.
Everyone pays x% of their total income.
Assuming 0 deductions and the objective is to bring in the same amount of money in a flat tax the burden is spread across the board every and everyone pays the same rate. Under a graduated system again no deductions the wealthy pay a higher percentage while the not as wealthy pay a lower percentage resulting in the wealthy paying in more to reach the same amount of money.
A flat tax is not necessarily a deduction free tax and a graduated tax does not necessarily have deductions.
Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller says that the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. It does seem to me like it could easily be handled by individual states.
No, I really disagree. If it were set by the states, there would totally be states that set it at like $1.00/hr. Which would then force other states to do the same. There needs to be a federal minimum that states are allowed to go higher than.
I think it should be noted that if you eliminate the Min wage you open a door for mas unionization. such was the case before the min wage.
I suppose it depends on your opinion of unions but I would be afraid to open that door.
Republican code for they want to throw it into the toilet and force people desperate for work to be paid pennies while the corporations laugh all the way to the bank. Minimum wage should be raised to at least 10$ an hour.
Agreed, however I think there needs to be a tiered FMW. Based on age. those under 17 and over 18:
If you're a minor under 17, then the $7.25 is fine. What kind of expenses does a 17 year old earn?
If you're over 18, then that wage should jump up to $10 - $14 an hour. And no raise should be less than 5% each year.
No, I really disagree. If it were set by the states, there would totally be states that set it at like $1.00/hr. Which would then force other states to do the same. There needs to be a federal minimum that states are allowed to go higher than.
That is fear mongering. History does not support this position as has been noted several times already in this thread.
If wages are not sustainable and there are no hand outs, people will not work for those places and the result would be the business going under because they lack the ability to support their venture or they raise their wage to a point where people will actually work it.
The problem with this issue is that many treat the worker as if they are a slave and have no say in the process. The worker is a single entity business to which sells their skills and abilities to the highest bidder.
I once took a position to which I negotiated 10k more a year than anyone who had worked that position prior to me. I was able to achieve such because I did not treat myself going into the interview as peon grateful for the benevolence of the business, rather I treated them on equal grounds and sold them my ability and potential to which would make a better investment than picking someone who simply treated the job like a hand out.
People have control here. A business can not survive in the manner you describe if people choose not to be taken advantage of. Too many people have extreme low self esteem and no sense of value of money or effort and so let business dictate to them.
Another important thing to consider is that if the business pays a wage that is lower than other states, yet due to the cost of living is sustainable and fair to which attracts workers, then that wage is proper. Setting generalized wages across the board and not allowing the state or local economy to set such a standard has negative consequences. In Texas, the cost of living was very low. The minimum wage was around 5 dollars when I moved here. Since then, federal law has raised it and the effect on the economy in terms of cost of living ratio has declined. That is, the federal law had a negative effect on business here and the result is that the minimum wage is no longer sustainable in many areas to which it was before.
Agreed, however I think there needs to be a tiered FMW. Based on age. those under 17 and over 18:
If you're a minor under 17, then the $7.25 is fine. What kind of expenses does a 17 year old earn?
If you're over 18, then that wage should jump up to $10 - $14 an hour. And no raise should be less than 5% each year.
So much for the honest days wage for an honest days work concept?
Work is work, a youth does not expend less energy or more energy than that of someone older. The work load is the same, yet you suggest they be paid more or less based on a factor that is irrelevant? What you argue is age discrimination as well as lifestyle discrimination.
What if they also paid mothers with children a different wage? What if when you applied for a job, they assessed your personal life in detail to ascertain how much you should be paid? What you describe is a very oppressive road that will only lead to extreme discrimination and oppressive dictation.
And surely Joe "Government sucks!" Miller must agree that unemployment benefits are perfectly constitutional, since his wife received them after being let go from her employment (working for her husband, by the way): Joe Miller's wife took unemployment benefits after working for him
Basically, every form of governmental action Joe Miller doesn't like is unconstitutional. Why? Oh, just because! But when the government is sending money to Joe Government sucks!" Miller and his wife? Hey, that's constitutional! You know... just because...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
