|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
NewForumSoftware posted:by who's definition? Welcome to the small business shuffle. As the republican who taught our meme-besotted friend can tell you, the goal is for you to picture the mom-and-pop corner store operation, in order to pass laws saying the Waltons don't have to pay taxes, on the grounds their holding company is technically a 'small business.' Crushing the working class and giving tremendous handouts to the ultra-rich is therefore justified by all the mom-and-pop stores that would go out of business if they had to pay their employees anything like a living wage, never you mind that the underlying logic is the good of the owner by far outweighs the miserable creatures he calls employees. Liberalism, baby.
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Majorian posted:When you call it "nonsense," that suggests that you think there's nothing to this story at all, never mind it being a silver bullet. I haven't seen anybody here argue that it's going to be a silver bullet - just that at this point, the Dems could get some mileage out of it. It's nonsense because the story isn't going to go any further and thinking that it's going to be the magic bullet that gets Trump impeached or the wagon that will carry the Democrats to future victory is beyond retarded. Majorian posted:CNN works fine for me; my point was, it's ridiculous of you to dismiss WaPo as "establishment media" in one breath, and then literally in the next, cite CNN. WaPo has been especially egregious since Bezos bought it. If you'd like me to pull all the mentions of it in the Left Wing Media thread, I'd be happy too. Also it's pretty hilarious how you keep trying to hammer me on just admitting I'm wrong (spoiler: I'm not) while also trying to claim that Trump was all over the place regarding taxes when I linked the four page pdf from 2015 explaining how he'd lower taxes for everybody (including the wealthy and fortune 500 corporations) and you could hear him stump on that policy across the country for months. I don't take most polls seriously since we ended up with President Trump and I'm definitely not going to place them above my own observations, no matter how many you link. (also also i said 'establishment outlets/fanatics' in my original post not 'beltway insiders' or 'elite establishment' like you two imagined) Ytlaya posted:If a message is commonly being propagated by See how stupid this sounds? Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 03:45 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:by who's definition? https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_g.txt The BLS posted:
https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt The BLS posted:Distribution of private sector employment by firm size class So under 49 employees make up...94.89% of all companies which equal 4,873,000 firms And 28% of all employed or 33,066,000 workers... And from the look of things that's down significantly over the past 3 years.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_g.txt you want to be real frightened, look what happens when you filter out the holding companies. Small businesses are dying, and they are dying primarily because the endgame of capitalism is economies of scale destroying them. The standardized shipping container did more to destroy the mom-and-pop business operation than any of the social welfare programs that haunt your nightmares ever could. You begging the government "please, won't someone think of my daddy's store" is no less begging for a handout than the minimum wage increase that terrifies you. Unfortunately, it also has significantly less evidence indicating it would help the economy in any way. No offense, but your daddy looks like the kind of guy who'd save his money. The stockworkers he pays under the table so he doesn't have to pay employment taxes on, though? You spend a buck on them and that buck is moving inside of an hour.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Welcome to the small business shuffle. The Waltons should have to pay taxes as they are now under Obama on their personal income. Wal-Mart should have to pay corporate tax as it is now 30%. There's no reason small businesses taxes can not be cut while taxes on larger corporations are mantained at the same level. There is no reason to maintain equal levels of taxation across all businesses. Taxation on businesses should be on businesses the same as income taxes, progressive in nature with certain extensions based on profitability and gross revenue. Once again. You're treating my like a Idiot. I'm not a idiot. It just doesn't make sense to me that Wal-Mart - a company that can buy a pencil in bulk at 5 to 10 times less than any other company has to pay for it, has to pay the exact same taxes as the small general store across the street with 5 employees who to add insult to injury, has to pay more for that exact same pencil. Small Business can not compete with this and that is what killed small business in america. Save your responses for the people in the Venezuela thread... VitalSigns posted:Um, if livable wages and benefits are a Wal-Mart ploy to drive small business under by stealing their workers, why aren't they executing this strategy already. They don't have to wait for a minimum wage law that exempts small business before they can steal all the workers, if minimum wage does what you claim then the Wal-Marts of the world can just pay more right now to kill all small business owners. Yet they aren't. You do know that the Walton's supported Hillary for President and donated happily to her campaign right? You realize how much it cost for Wal-Mart to do that? In the current retail environment where Amazon and online stores are breathing down their neck and the neck of every retailer? Wal-Mart can not raise wages unless everyone else is forced to do the same, and maintain competivity with other businesses. If everyone else is forced to do the same thing they can stay competitive. And if small businesses are exempted it's double boon for them as they can collect their workers, and force them out of business. Wal-Mart's whole existence is thanks to it being able to force small businesses out of businesses. This used to be a huge reason Democrats hated it. Have you really forgotten that?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
societies existed before capitalism dude
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
If a "small business" can't afford to pay its employees a living wage, why should it exist?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:
As you are not an idiot, I would like you to explain how CostCo's continued existence does not make your entire argument a tragic joke. Because, of course, you are aware of their employment policies, have incorporated them into your worldview, and are not just regurgitating Daddy's gospel verbatim.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:You realize how much it cost for Wal-Mart to do that? In the current retail environment where Amazon and online stores are breathing down their neck and the neck of every retailer? Wait, does raising wages make Wal-Mart less competitive or more competitive. You're arguing both, somehow, that Wal-Mart can't raise wages because that would make it do worse against competitors who have lower costs and Wal-Mart would get beat on price, and that raising wages would make it do better against competitors because they'd snap up all the good workers and Wal-Mart would beat them on quality.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:you want to be real frightened, look what happens when you filter out the holding companies. Once again, We are trying to stop that. You seem happy to embrace large corporations controlling everything because you are guessing you can tax them and force them to pay minimum wages. Bubble Bursted: They won't. They won't. They'll pay off Congressman and Senators and make things work. Your massive welfare state is unnatenable and will lead to a Venezuela like situation. The rich must be taxed but the Government can not be the sole provider of goods for a sizeable majority of the population. Safety nets should be that - safety nets. And long-term welfare should exist only for people who can not find gainful employment. Large business is why where we are at. Small Business and it's death is why we are where we at. We must devolve our current service sector and make Small Businesses competitive again across the board. This is something i've though a lot about. The System is rigged against workers and small businesses and we need a plan to unrig the system at several levels. Provide sales tax exemptions to small businesses below a certain size, with sales below a certain revenue level, and with profit below a certain level in individual states to even out the price of products and make them competitive with large chains again. Cut corporate taxes on small businesses below a certain size, with sales below a certain revenue level, and with profit below a certain level nation wide. Increase corporate taxation by doing away with corporate loopholes and increase taxes on the 1% and investors. Increase the minimum wage on a state by state basis dependent on the cost of living. End Citizens United and do away with privately funded election campaigning systems in favor of a public one. And place regulation and taxes upon automation. If a robot replaces a job then the company who fired that person has to continue to pay that persons wages until he can find another job.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Small Businesses have less than 25 employees. The vast majority have less than 10. Fun fact. Depending on the type of business you run you could have as many as 1500 employees and still count for tax purposes! This can also include holding/shell/financial companies that have few employees but have a huge reach and deal in vast sums of money. Keep this in mind the next time you hear Republicans talking about wanting to help small businesses. https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-size-standards-industry-sector
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
I cannot understand the logical conundrum of protecting small businesses from a minimum wage increase while implicitly acknowledging that they're basically exploting their employees. If they can't earn enough to pay the workers a fair wage then why do they deserve to exist?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Charles loving Krauthammer recently acknowledged that single-payer is inevitable. JeffersonClay (and other centrists) maintains that single-payer would galvanize an unstoppable wave of republican baby boomers to overwhelm the polls in response. And unstoppable force meets an immovable object? The conclusion here is that JeffersonClay is completely detached from reality and full of poo poo, even more so than some republicans. rudatron posted:You're obviously a little slow on the uptake, so I'll use smaller words this time. This is a really good post.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
You'll have to give JeffersonClay some time, he's in the Trump thread extolling the wonders of sweatshops, and the virtues of job creators for benevolently bestowing the gift of slave labor upon the benighted dusky-skinned peoples of the earth.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Marxism-via-Blizzard-Entertainment. Delightful. No material conditions need be considered, no, it is a a sickness of the soul that has produced the servants of the dread "idpol," who must be vanquished in ascending order of sweet drops in order to proceed to the next tier.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:If a "small business" can't afford to pay its employees a living wage, why should it exist? *Rhetoric about how Job Creators™ are everything, and workers would be dying in the streets if we don't meet their every need*
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I would much rather live in a world where everyone is employed by large corporations but making a living wage than a world where a bunch of people are worse off and working at small businesses. Ultimately business owners represent a tiny portion of the total population, and decisions should not be made with their well being as top priority (not that increasing minimum wage would actually hurt most small businesses to begin with). Also, more importantly, consider the following: - As I think has been mentioned, higher minimum wages can easily help small businesses through putting more money in the pockets of people in poorer communities. More money = more money to spend at businesses small or large. - Using your logic, why shouldn't we just reduce minimum wage to $3/hr? After all, if increasing it will hurt small businesses, it stands to reason that decreasing it will help them! This sort of gets to the core problem with your logic, which is that it's inherently obvious that there exists a trade-off between the benefits and harm to increasing minimum wage, and you're just arbitrarily assuming that the current minimum wage must be the optimal point and that small businesses can't sustain anything higher. - There are other ways to support and encourage small businesses other than keeping wages low. Give them tax cuts if you need to. edit: Also, as you yourself pointed out, most Americans do not work at small businesses. You're basically asking millions upon million of Americans to go without a living wage for the sake of a fraction of a fraction of businesses (with fraction mentioned twice because most small businesses would be okay with the increase in minimum wage to begin with). Call Me Charlie posted:See how stupid this sounds? ...not really? Because a whole bunch of Republicans actually do care about Benghazi (or at least did when the topic was at its height)? Like, doesn't that just prove my point? And the Russia stuff is WAY more high profile than Benghazi was. Benghazi was something where it was a huge stretch to blame it on Clinton to begin with, but the implications of Trump/Russia collusion are far greater and more generally accepted to be a problem. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 16:57 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Eat the rich and let's take care of our needy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:35
|
|
L
|
Falstaff posted:If a "small business" can't afford to pay its employees a living wage, why should it exist?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
LOL if you think the democrats hold even superficial anti-racist measures above making sure rich people do not pay more to the government.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
This conversation about minimum wage always reminds me of the marketplace story they ran when a California town increased its minimum wage. The entire story was about 2 small business owners, one outside of said town who claimed she couldn't hire anyone because everyone had gone to work in the town with higher wages, and the other in town, who claimed she had to fire a bunch of people because she couldn't afford them. And nowhere in the story anyone ever goes "how can the minimum wage increase both get a bunch of people fired in the town, but also attract all the workers from nearby towns?"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
I think it's a fair argument that a large part of our problem is across our nation between the large cities a lot of communities are filled with people mostly working at franchises of large corporate chains. They aren't working to create wealth for themselves and their communities, but instead for the rich rear end in a top hat in a suit on Madison or whatever avenue in Manhattan they reside. Point being, people don't see themselves belong in their communities, they see their communities owned by other people like Kevin Johnson or Art Peck, far far away from where they live and work. Hence the reasoning behind breaking up the big monopolies and nationalizing companies in a transition to employee owned efforts.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
 If you advocate $15MW instead of basic income.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:
Basic income is putting cash in the hands of the poor to create wealth for the rich. It's not a real solution. Get a Universal Standard of Living or get out.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Get a Universal Standard of Living or get out. Basic income resembles this much more than a $15MW implementation.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Its not one or the other, you grab whatever's easiest.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You'll have to give JeffersonClay some time, he's in the Trump thread extolling the wonders of sweatshops, and the virtues of job creators for benevolently bestowing the gift of slave labor upon the benighted dusky-skinned peoples of the earth. Bwah??
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_g.txt None of this says anything about "small business" https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf Here you go, for instance a gold mine can be a small business if it has less than 1500 employees
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
A real ma and pa store would just pay themselves out whatever after expenses and pay the income tax rate.. why cater tax rules to these people who it doesn't apply to?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Radish posted:Bwah?? JeffersonClay posted:There's a symmetry between the argument "help undocumented immigrants by stopping people from hiring them " and "help third world sweatshop workers by stopping people from trading for their products". Capitalist exploitation is bad, therefore ending capitalist exploitation is good. No, because people might rationally prefer capitalist exploitation to unemployment. Closing sweatshops or excluding undocumented workers from the labor market does not make those workers better off. Not unless the plan can somehow create less exploitative jobs for these workers as well, which they never do.  
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Sometimes I guess the merciful and sensible liberal thing to do is allow illegally constructed buildings to catch fire killing the workers inside since the alternative is starving to death.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
my god do I loathe him
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:my god do I loathe him Emancipation is going to drive negro unemployment through the roof. So when you think about it Lincoln is the real racist. ~ JeffersonClay c.1861
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Basic income resembles this much more than a $15MW implementation. Basic income would have be at least equal to the equivalent of working full time at at reasonable, non-poverty wage though, and most proposals I've seen involve the basic income still being so low that people living off of it would be in poverty. I also feel like basic income would effectively waste a bunch of money on the significant fraction (probably at least 1/3) of Americans who don't need it at all. Though I guess it depends upon whether the extra bureaucracy to determine that someone doesn't make >$60k (or whatever*) costs more than would be saved by limiting it to only the working class. I've always felt like the "literally everyone, including the rich, would get basic income" element mostly existed as something to get the petit bourgeois on board with the idea. *In practice it seems like, again ignoring the potential bureaucratic costs, the best method would be to make basic income, up to a point, a function of your work income (isn't there some trial running in Canada or something using this method?). So someone making $50k would get less than someone making $30k, but adjusted in such a way that people getting raises at work still increases their net income (i.e. not a 1 to 1 decrease in basic income for increase in work income). Again, this is completely dependent upon the necessary bureaucratic costs being less than the money saved by giving a flat payment to everyone. It just seems like a massive waste of money to give $25k or whatever to the literally millions of Americans who make at least six figures and don't need it in the slightest. The top 10 million wealthiest Americans alone would cost ~$250 billion at the aforementioned $25k, and it's hard to imagine the bureaucratic costs being greater than that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Basic income would have be at least equal to the equivalent of working full time at at reasonable, non-poverty wage though, and most proposals I've seen involve the basic income still being so low that people living off of it would be in poverty. There are ways to work around this in implementation, the most obvious being a reverse income tax. In the end there's gonna be some bureaucracy, and that's fine it's still money being paid to Americans.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Again, this is completely dependent upon the necessary bureaucratic costs being less than the money saved by giving a flat payment to everyone. It just seems like a massive waste of money to give $25k or whatever to the literally millions of Americans who make at least six figures and don't need it in the slightest. The top 10 million wealthiest Americans alone would cost ~$250 billion at the aforementioned $25k, and it's hard to imagine the bureaucratic costs being greater than that. Alienwarehouse posted:
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Basic income is putting cash in the hands of the poor to create wealth for the rich. It's not a real solution. Another thing that's important is giving people economic empowerment. If you just throw people in public housing and give them food stamps, you're not really giving them any kind of economic self-determination. I think that's probably morally wrong, but on the practical side a lot of people just hate that poo poo and will vote against it even if they might benefit from the programs. And, to be fair, basic income does not do a lot for economic empowerment either, but it at least reduces the leverage employers have against their workers (work here or starve i.e. wage slavery) which can be easily sold as empowering IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Basic income would have be at least equal to the equivalent of working full time at at reasonable, non-poverty wage though, and most proposals I've seen involve the basic income still being so low that people living off of it would be in poverty.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Basic income would have be at least equal to the equivalent of working full time at at reasonable, non-poverty wage though, and most proposals I've seen involve the basic income still being so low that people living off of it would be in poverty. Everyone should just get as much as it takes to get to ~$60,000 household income, for starters. Every time UBI, mincome, and so on come up people talk about how to retrofit it onto the current system when it would drastically alter the current system so much so that it doesn't matter. The way things work is not an accident. These systems and rules we pretend are unimpeachable can be altered and rebuilt. Money isn't even real; it's value is decided by a bunch of old fuckers in a room somewhere and by external factors and decisions also made by other old fuckers in a room somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Isn't basic income an implementation of universal standard of living? I haven't heard this argument against basic income before - could you elaborate? The problem right now is that there are so many schemes and even whole industries that exist solely to keep poor people poor. Payday loans, Rent-to-own, our current judicial system, overdraft fees, week-to-week room renting - I could go on. Being broke is loving expensive in America. My fear is that people aren't going to be building wealth or be economically empowered because the basic income won't be high enough or some new scheme or hustle will crop up to fleece these people of their basic income keeping them from rising above the tide so many Americans are treading water in right now. There's so much lovely and uninhabitable housing that people are fighting over right now because that's all they can afford, and god only knows how many lovely McMansions that millions of Americans have been foreclosed out of. I firmly believe we can do better than keep people just above squalor.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:21
|
|