Norris2k said:
Nuvendil said:
Sponsor them with taxes? Taxes are one of the largest expenses they face. McDonalds and other large companies face a tax rate in excess 35% of taxable income (that's billions of dollars, their taxable income exceeds 7 billion) and that's just federal. State goes on top of that and varies.
As for the bits about raising wages and stuff, as I said I am fine with a raise to something survivable but that's not what people keep demanding. They want a minimum wage that makes everyone middle class but my point is the cost of that plan is astronomical and it would have to be recouped somewhere. And that somewhere is going to be product prices. And if the cost of goods goes up on average significantly what's the point? You can't forcibly make the economy pay out more than it is able. Which is why it must fall to the States to set the minimum wage according to the cost of living and economic health. Keep the federal low to allow for that.
And in the case of McDonalds, as I explained before they aren't looking to provide all their employees with careers or even most. They are capitalizing on the fluidity of the work force, that there are always people either just entering the workforce or in between jobs or otherwise just looking for *some* work. In other words, these are jobs and products that otherwise wouldn't exist, many currently working at McDos wouldn't have a job if not for that very business model. It's not a model you have to agree with. And as I said I would be fine with (and McDos could survive with) a moderate increase in minimum wage.
Also, food for thought, the old minimum wages were set in a time where one person per household supported the household. Now a much larger percentage of households have two or more sources of income. Which does effect the dynamics here. Not only does that mean lower amounts support more, but also that more money is payed out via payroll than many think. Not saying this swings the debate either way. Just another thing to throw into the mix of highly complicated factors that go into discussing such large, impactful changes to laws regarding business.
|
That's exactly the point of Bernie and such, they do want to make a disruptive change, while you are thinking inside the reality of the current system. The "fluidity of work", these people that can't have any other job (and that's fact), the fact you now need 2 people to barely support a family, we are forced into it by greed. In part by these jobs that does not pay enough, that doesn't offer a carrier or a significant experience.
About sponsoring, we are not thinking on the same base. 35% of tax is normal, that what happens in modern countries, in Europe, USA, Japan. I can't think about a decent country without petrol that don't have at least such a level of tax. They have to deal with it, we are all. What is not normal is to costs directly (food stamp and such), and indirectly (vast debate, but I believe that the impact of poverty is huge, from criminality rate to education). That's sponsoring if we pay taxes to lower their costs and increase their profits.
|
Uh, no, the part of multiple people pulling in money for the household came before the rise in cost of living began offsetting the difference.
And fluidity in the workforce is inevitable, it will be there no matter what you raise the minimum wage to. And it will be capitalized on. And you can dislike the idea of it but unemployment is what is behind door number two. Unless, of course, you continuously push minimum wages beyond what the economy can afford to pay out. The fact is simply this: if you want a stable, open market that can endure and recover from recessions, you cannot have the minimum wage as freaking high as guys like Bernie love to talk about. I've spoken on this numerous times in this thread in varying levels of detail. Raise the minimum wage by all means, but it must not be raised so high as to be beyond the ability of the economy of the region to support, nor so high that the economy becomes rigid, inflexible, and hostile to small businesses (which frankly the States is already on its way to being)
