Hundreds march at McDonald's HQ over low wages

[Astro14]

Lincoln also said: "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

So, while the government has the right to tax, to tax at such a high rate as we do is to steal the fruits of the labor of those who've worked hard. Labor is superior to capital, is it not?

Why do you respect the labor of a McDonald's worker but so disrespect the work of a doctor, or other professional, that you're OK confiscating that result of that more industrious, more valuable, labor?

You're OK tearing down his house to build your own...

 

[Subdued]

Originally Posted By: Trajan


Once you pay taxes, its no longer YOUR money.

Correct. Much in the same way when you get robbed, the money taken is no longer your money.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Astro14


Why do you respect the labor of a McDonald's worker but so disrespect the work of a doctor, or other professional, that you're OK confiscating that result of that more industrious, more valuable, labor?


There's a large rift between what the top paid people make and the bottom, and the issue at had is trying to get the bottom paid people a little further higher up, without really touching the top people. History has shown such rifts aren't healthy for societies. Instead of taxing doctors and others not proven to use McDonalds (like presently happens with EITC, food stamps etc to subsidize the workers) any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

So I don't follow how you think a higher minimum wage is confiscating money from a doctor.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Trajan


The Gettysburg Address has nothing to do with taxes. It says nothing about taxes.

Once you pay taxes, its no longer YOUR money. it's the governments, and the countries money. the government decides how to spend it. the money you have left over after you pay taxes, and your bills... THAT'S "your" money. you don't get to say I want the money I paid on taxes spent on this, on not that. that's not how it works. if you don't like the way the government is spending tax revenue, change the government through elections!




The point of the last line of the Gettysburg address is that the government is, of the people,, by the people , for the people. Its not above the people, so its still the peoples money.

Change the government through elections?
I agree 100% !!! The problem is Elections are held during the week when most people who are paying the tax bills are working.
And many cannot get out to vote.
Those who are taking from the peoples money show up in mass and are even bused there by special interest groups.

IF elections were held on a saturday i think the turnout and results would be quite different.


So if my employer gives me an amount of money in my check for a business trip to cover a hotel room and food. Once its in my bank account its mine to do with as i wish???

If i don't go on the trip and keep the money or use it for my employer finds out, is it okay since its already paid and its My Money??
I don't think so. How is this different than the money given to provide food and shelter yet get spent/traded on other things?

 

[javacontour]

Which is other peoples money. It's not like you can shop around for your tax rate. The government passes a law saying they are entitled to x% of your income, or y% excise tax on some good
or service. Then, they take money from you and buy votes with it by appealing to some special interest.

Tax money is money TAKEN. At least with a business, you have a say. If you don't like Wal*Mart or McDonalds, you are free to never spend a dime there.




Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Trav
Flop houses, blue plate specials and shoe leather. Not nice apartments, cars, big screen TV, free cell phones, and steak.


In other words, the government will dictate what you can and can't have?


Since its other peoples money, yes. They did not earn it, its not theirs. Its not given to them for those things, its give to keep them from starving and keeping rain off their heads UNTIL they find employment.


It isn't other people's money. It's money the gov't collects to use for whatever is needed to be done.

 

[javacontour]

Except the employer/employee relationship is by mutual agreement. Taxes are taken, without negotiations with the tax payer. A small group gets together and decides for you what you should pay, then crafts the systems to take it from you. They may spend it to make your community or state better, or they may only spend $0.75 of every dollar confiscated in your community or state and send the other $0.25 to another state.

That doesn't even consider if it's spent wisely. Many places lose out because the brain trust in DC want to send 25 percent of the taxes collected in your state to another to buy votes there.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: spasm3


It is other peoples money, that's the problem with government. There is a fiduciary responsibility to use the money wisely, not for whatever it wants or thinks needs to be done, like free cell phones, and the things we see that are wasted.


That's right, it is *not* other people's money. Money that you pay in taxes is no more your money than what you get in salary belongs to your employer. Or the money that you pay for goods/services is still yours.

 

[rjundi]

Does anyway who is posting actually eat McD's food to care if price got raised?

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Astro14


Why do you respect the labor of a McDonald's worker but so disrespect the work of a doctor, or other professional, that you're OK confiscating that result of that more industrious, more valuable, labor?


There's a large rift between what the top paid people make and the bottom, and the issue at had is trying to get the bottom paid people a little further higher up, without really touching the top people. History has shown such rifts aren't healthy for societies. Instead of taxing doctors and others not proven to use McDonalds (like presently happens with EITC, food stamps etc to subsidize the workers) any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

So I don't follow how you think a higher minimum wage is confiscating money from a doctor.

So you mean attack the poor that do go to fast food places to subsidize other poor people? Something doesn’t sound right there. LOL

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: eljefino


There's a large rift between what the top paid people make and the bottom, and the issue at had is trying to get the bottom paid people a little further higher up, without really touching the top people. History has shown such rifts aren't healthy for societies. Instead of taxing doctors and others not proven to use McDonalds (like presently happens with EITC, food stamps etc to subsidize the workers) any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

So I don't follow how you think a higher minimum wage is confiscating money from a doctor.

So you mean attack the poor that do go to fast food places to subsidize other poor people? Something doesn’t sound right there. LOL


Uh, boost the poor by helping their wages? Trickle up and whatnot.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Except the employer/employee relationship is by mutual agreement. Taxes are taken, without negotiations with the tax payer. A small group gets together and decides for you what you should pay, then crafts the systems to take it from you. They may spend it to make your community or state better, or they may only spend $0.75 of every dollar confiscated in your community or state and send the other $0.25 to another state.

That doesn't even consider if it's spent wisely. Many places lose out because the brain trust in DC want to send 25 percent of the taxes collected in your state to another to buy votes there.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: spasm3


It is other peoples money, that's the problem with government. There is a fiduciary responsibility to use the money wisely, not for whatever it wants or thinks needs to be done, like free cell phones, and the things we see that are wasted.


That's right, it is *not* other people's money. Money that you pay in taxes is no more your money than what you get in salary belongs to your employer. Or the money that you pay for goods/services is still yours.


But we are a democracy, we elect those people to make those decisions for us. We go to war, spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people to bring it to other nations. So it must be a worthwhile system.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


But we are a democracy, we elect those people to make those decisions for us. We go to war, spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people to bring it to other nations. So it must be a worthwhile system.

Ummm...no we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. You might want to read up on that.
Huge difference.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


But we are a democracy, we elect those people to make those decisions for us. We go to war, spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people to bring it to other nations. So it must be a worthwhile system.

Ummm...no we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. You might want to read up on that.
Huge difference.


Is a constitutional republic not a democracy? If not, I have been bamboozled for years!

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


But we are a democracy, we elect those people to make those decisions for us. We go to war, spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people to bring it to other nations. So it must be a worthwhile system.

Ummm...no we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. You might want to read up on that.
Huge difference.


Is a constitutional republic not a democracy? If not, I have been bamboozled for years!


A republic. In a democracy its the rule of the majority, therefore minorities would have no say whatsoever, no electoral college etc.

 

[javacontour]

Better read up on the Constitution. We are a representative republic. The founding fathers wanted to avoid the tyranny associated with a mere democracy. If majority rules instead of equal rights for all, then a majority can vote in special rights to serve the majority.

We didn't even directly elect Senators until 1913. Until then, they were appointed by state governments.

If you have a simple majority rules, then you can't eliminate things that are popular, but violate the rights of another.

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Except the employer/employee relationship is by mutual agreement. Taxes are taken, without negotiations with the tax payer. A small group gets together and decides for you what you should pay, then crafts the systems to take it from you. They may spend it to make your community or state better, or they may only spend $0.75 of every dollar confiscated in your community or state and send the other $0.25 to another state.

That doesn't even consider if it's spent wisely. Many places lose out because the brain trust in DC want to send 25 percent of the taxes collected in your state to another to buy votes there.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: spasm3


It is other peoples money, that's the problem with government. There is a fiduciary responsibility to use the money wisely, not for whatever it wants or thinks needs to be done, like free cell phones, and the things we see that are wasted.


That's right, it is *not* other people's money. Money that you pay in taxes is no more your money than what you get in salary belongs to your employer. Or the money that you pay for goods/services is still yours.


But we are a democracy, we elect those people to make those decisions for us. We go to war, spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people to bring it to other nations. So it must be a worthwhile system.

 

[Alfred_B]

So what we have is even better than democracy. So why do we complain about the corruption of the local, county, state and federal elected officials? They got their jobs through the best and most representative method.

 

[javacontour]

Local corruption should be easiest to fix. If your local leaders are corrupt, don't re-elect them.

What I think is harder to fix is the centralized federal corruption and/or mismanagement.

But the system we have now is most of the money goes to DC and then someone goes to DC to try to get the money back in your district.

If you are from a state like mine, IL, For every dollar taken in federal taxes, IL gets about $0.75 in Federal spending. Meaning about 25% of federal taxes are redistributed to other states. While it wouldn't fix the mismanagement in Springfield, IL would be better off if it could keep it's money, rather than have it redistributed to states that get more than $1 in Federal spending for every $1 in Federal revenue collected.

So your local leaders look good. After all, their part of your tax bite is probably small compared to your federal bill. Your congressman looks good, because look at all the projects he brings to the district.

What he doesn't tell you is how much is going elsewhere. How much is going to states that unlike yours, get more than $1 of Federal spending for every dollar collected in that state.

The braintrust in DC takes no responsibility. They point at each other, blaming others or the spending.

Not one of them would ever suggest going back to the Constitution, dusting of the 10th Amendment and leaving most things to be done by the states.

I saw a number of folks quoting Lincoln. I'd be happy to go back to the Income tax rates of that era, 3%.

Funny how the rates keep going up and up and up. So not only do you have inflation to raise revenues, but the actual tax rates have gone up.

Why not go back to the rates during Lincoln's presidency, 3 percent?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Astro14


Why do you respect the labor of a McDonald's worker but so disrespect the work of a doctor, or other professional, that you're OK confiscating that result of that more industrious, more valuable, labor?


There's a large rift between what the top paid people make and the bottom, and the issue at had is trying to get the bottom paid people a little further higher up, without really touching the top people. History has shown such rifts aren't healthy for societies. Instead of taxing doctors and others not proven to use McDonalds (like presently happens with EITC, food stamps etc to subsidize the workers) any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

So I don't follow how you think a higher minimum wage is confiscating money from a doctor.


What you suggest: "trying to get the bottom paid people a little further higher up, without really touching the top people." hasn't ever worked. Each step towards it has been borne by those, not at the tip top, the 0.1%, but by the upper middle class. Look at our income tax rates now, at AMT, that limits the upper middle class tax deductions, at the Obamacare tax, that hits the upper middle class and middle class. They bear the brunt of the cost every single time.

The truly rich don't have an income like you and I, so they don't really pay income taxes like you and I. Think of the criticisms levied at Mitt Romney, or of Warren Buffet's advocacy...

But every time there is a program proposed that has a cost, and make no mistake about it, raising the minimum wage has a cost, our politicians promise that "the rich" will pay for it...except that they don't, and the middle class, and particularly the upper middle class, is left holding the bag.

Folks in the lower middle class think they pay taxes...and they do, principally sales tax, and Medicare/Social Security, but they don't really pay income taxes, because they also get EIC, which means that they get more back from the government than they had withheld over the year, so they get net cash from the government every year. That's not paying taxes, that's an entitlement hand out. And entitlements are 65% of the Federal budget now. 65% of Federal spending is now money given to constituents...and that money comes, for the most part, from the middle class and upper middle class.

So, your social engineering programs, in this case of raising the minimum wage, will have to be paid for, and it will be paid for by those who have worked hard and achieved some modest success.

That 1% guy I referred to a few pages ago? His income went up by $21,000 in tax year 2014...sounds great, right? Keep in mind that he's in his 50's at the peak of his career...

But because tax cuts expired, and Obamacare taxes kicked in, his Federal income taxes went up by $15,000, and his state income taxes went up by $1,500...all that extra work, all that extra labor on his part, working hard, moving up in his job: went to other people, not to the guy that earned it. He got to keep very little of it...after he earned it.

And that's both unfair, and frankly, unsustainable. Adding more to that guy's burden won't help this country, or this economy...he's not likely to bust his @#$ next year, not if he doesn't get to keep any of it...so, he's not going to spend anything...and he's not going to buy anything...his net income didn't really go up...

But he'll be vilified in the next political discussion as "not paying his fair share"...and he'll be blamed for the rift between top and bottom...and he'll be asked to pay to fix it...and given the tax rates now, it will amount to confiscation...

 

[IndyIan]

What's the link though, between raising minimum wage and the amount of taxes a $250+k income needs to pay?
Up here we don't pay any taxes on the first $11-12k, so a bump in pay to the minimum wage income, equals more tax paid by that group. Plus they should qualify for less government assistance. This could/should result in lower taxes for upper incomes.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Subdued
Originally Posted By: Trajan


Once you pay taxes, its no longer YOUR money.

Correct. Much in the same way when you get robbed, the money taken is no longer your money.


Haw! pretty good one, and so similar!

Very simply, all these issues with "rich" and "poor" are the RESULT of social programs, not the cause! Since welfare was implemented the rolls have grown tremendously, much more just in the past few years.

A simple flat income tax with zero deductions for anyone not blind or disabled solves a lot of the revenue issues with a ridiculously complicated tax code. I personally love a national sales tax, nothing fairer. Spend a lot? Pay a lot.

Raising wages will hugely impact the very folks we are being sold on it helping. This whole vilify the "rich" thing is a political creation designed to polarize us. And who wants to make the Government bigger and give it even more moolah to waste?

And it's working well...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Since welfare was implemented the rolls have grown tremendously, much more just in the past few years.

Well yeah. That's what happens as the population grows. More of all kinds of people, including poor ones.


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
A simple flat income tax with zero deductions for anyone not blind or disabled solves a lot of the revenue issues with a ridiculously complicated tax code. I personally love a national sales tax, nothing fairer. Spend a lot? Pay a lot.

100% agreement on simplifying the tax code.

Sales taxes are inherently regressive though, so... kind of the opposite of fair.


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Raising wages will hugely impact the very folks we are being sold on it helping. This whole vilify the "rich" thing is a political creation designed to polarize us.

The only villification I see here is when people assume that poverty is a character defect.