Poll of the Day > The worst argument to Biden's tax plan is...

(+) Yeah! (+)

That if banks/dealerships are suddenly taxed more, theyre going to take it out on the consumer, and quadruple interest rates/payments, milk and bread will suddenly be $10 a piece. And apparently everyone will just... let it happen.

And then they vote for the guy already lining those companies pockets as they exploit you in a more overt way.

---

PK_Spam posted...

That if banks/dealerships are suddenly taxed more, theyre going to take it out on the consumer, and quadruple interest rates/payments, milk and bread will suddenly be $10 a piece. And apparently everyone will just... let it happen.

And then they vote for the guy already lining those companies pockets as they exploit you in a more overt way.

However, the taxes they are paying will result in savings on you that will offset that price increase... unless of course those taxes are needlessly funnelled into dead-end programs

---

99.9% of americans have absolutely no fucking idea how micro/macroeconomics or anything to do with math beyond basic algebra actually work.

People think if you raise minimum wage by $7 then mcdonald's burgers will suddenly cost $7 more as if employee numbers and unit sales at a major international corporation are a 1:1 ratio and that's at all how math works.

---

man101 posted...

99.9% of americans have absolutely no fucking idea how micro/macroeconomics or anything to do with math beyond basic algebra actually work.

People think if you raise minimum wage by $7 then mcdonald's burgers will suddenly cost $7 more as if employee numbers and unit sales at a major international corporation are a 1:1 ratio and that's at all how math works.

I don't know anyone who thinks that. But people do think if you raised minimum wage 7$ it will make a certain level of worker impossible to hire.

In very simple terms, if 2 workers will bring in 17.50$ of revenue and 3 workers will bring in 25$ of revenue, you can hire 3 and pay each worker 7$ and collect 4$ profit--which is better than hiring 2 workers and collecting $3.50 profit.

But what if minimum wage is 8$? Now 3 workers cost 24$ meaning only 1$ of profit. 2 workers will cost 16$ meaning 1.50$ profit. So you will of course go with 2 workers and fire/never hire #3 who is likely new to/re-entering the workforce.

This might be what people are trying to explain.

blax34dm posted...

I don't know anyone who thinks that. But people do think if you raised minimum wage 7$ it will make a certain level of worker impossible to hire.

In very simple terms, if 2 workers will bring in 17.50$ of revenue and 3 workers will bring in 25$ of revenue, you can hire 3 and pay each worker 7$ and collect 4$ profit--which is better than hiring 2 workers and collecting $3.50 profit.

But what if minimum wage is 8$? Now 3 workers cost 24$ meaning only 1$ of profit. 2 workers will cost 16$ meaning 1.50$ profit. So you will of course go with 2 workers and fire/never hire #3 who is likely new to/re-entering the workforce.

This might be what people are trying to explain.

Yes, the basis behind that line of thinking is that profits for the company must always be maximized at the expense of providing a decent wage for workers. If people who run massive corporations were willing to take a small pay cut or--god forbid--not expect massive growth every year and be satisfied with stable revenue, then it would be easy to pay everyone a lot of money. But we don't live in a society that values economic stability. We value growth. Only growth. Become as rich as possible no matter the cost.

---

Lokarin posted...

However, the taxes they are paying will result in savings on you that will offset that price increase... unless of course those taxes are needlessly funnelled into dead-end programs

I dont feel like Im saving here in Canada where we pay some of the worlds highest taxes. Probably because the government weve had since 2015 has done the last thing youve said. Except instead of dead-end programs, its just been sent outside of Canada.

---

man101 posted...

Yes, the basis behind that line of thinking is that profits for the company must always be maximized at the expense of providing a decent wage for workers. If people who run massive corporations were willing to take a small pay cut or--god forbid--not expect massive growth every year and be satisfied with stable revenue, then it would be easy to pay everyone a lot of money. But we don't live in a society that values economic stability. We value growth. Only growth. Become as rich as possible no matter the cost.

Gotta pay those stock holders to secure their future :/

It's a broken system and I sadly hear ALL these arguments, but less of the intelligent ones. People go so far as to say to not raise minimum wage cause another employee worked years for that and it's not fair. That is how clearly people will think of themselves but not a second longer. Why fight someone when you're losing nothing? That's just greedy.

---

Employers require a certain number of staff to operate efficiently.

Employers don't hire staff they don't need. It doesn't happen regardless of what the minimum wage is.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Employers require a certain number of staff to operate efficiently.

Employers don't hire staff they don't need. It doesn't happen regardless of what the minimum wage is.

It's really kind of baffling that some people seem to think that businesses are currently hiring more people than they actually need because the low minimum wage allows them to hand out some spare jobs as an act of charity. No, businesses hire however many people they need. There's sometimes room to streamline work flow such that fewer workers are needed, and that effort may become more worthwhile if minimum wage is raised (resulting in some layoffs), but the vast majority of minimum wage jobs will continue to exist regardless of the minimum wage.

---

adjl posted...

It's really kind of baffling that some people seem to think that businesses are currently hiring more people than they actually need because the low minimum wage allows them to hand out some spare jobs as an act of charity. No, businesses hire however many people they need. There's sometimes room to streamline work flow such that fewer workers are needed, and that effort may become more worthwhile if minimum wage is raised (resulting in some layoffs), but the vast majority of minimum wage jobs will continue to exist regardless of the minimum wage.

Not only that, but when a big business posts record profits and has surging stocks yet issue mass layoffs anyway, the same people making these bs claims against higher minimum wage are the first to proclaim, "they're running a business, not a charity" to be dismissive of the outcry.

man101 posted...

But we don't live in a society that values economic stability. We value growth. Only growth.

Yikes. I figured you had some sort of economic/finance education based on what you said before about 99% of people having no idea how macro/micro works. But based on what you said quoted above never mind lol forget I responded. I would recommend looking into wealth creation and I suppose just some basic econ. Having a strong opinion that is not actually based on knowledge is not a good way to go about things.

blax34dm posted...

Yikes. I figured you had some sort of economic/finance education based on what you said before about 99% of people having no idea how macro/micro works. But based on what you said quoted above never mind lol forget I responded. I would recommend looking into wealth creation and I suppose just some basic econ. Having a strong opinion that is not actually based on knowledge is not a good way to go about things.

I assumed based on my ape-like sentence fragmenting you would infer I was speaking in dumbed down terms and ideas average people frame their thoughts in.

---

PK_Spam posted...

That if banks/dealerships are suddenly taxed more, theyre going to take it out on the consumer, and quadruple interest rates/payments, milk and bread will suddenly be $10 a piece. And apparently everyone will just... let it happen.

That's how businesses work. The only thing that can operate at a loss is government.

PK_Spam posted...

And then they vote for the guy already lining those companies pockets as they exploit you in a more overt way.

lolwut? Mutual benefit is a thing, not everything is a zero-sum game no matter how much politicians try to claim otherwise. And at the end of the day, if a company is passing along the expenses added by taxes to you the consumer, you're paying more. You're also going to be paying more taxes in general, because it's not a matter of taxes moving around so the burden is shifted but the overall government spending goes up, largely driven by entitlement spending and larger government (where you wind up with a lot more government workers, most of whom are paid much higher than their private sector counterparts).

man101 posted...

99.9% of americans have absolutely no fucking idea how micro/macroeconomics or anything to do with math beyond basic algebra actually work.

People think if you raise minimum wage by $7 then mcdonald's burgers will suddenly cost $7 more as if employee numbers and unit sales at a major international corporation are a 1:1 ratio and that's at all how math works.

And that lack of understanding is why people think you can raise the minimum wage by $7 or $8 with no impact, despite the fact that the food industry operates on relatively low margins and are constantly struggling to keep other costs down. In the case of fast food, it means franchisees are forced to hire fewer workers and work more hours themselves when, in some cases, they might already work a 60-hour week. But the general attitude among those groups is "fuck business owners" anyway

Blightzkrieg posted...

Employers require a certain number of staff to operate efficiently.

Employers don't hire staff they don't need. It doesn't happen regardless of what the minimum wage is.

While hiring more people than "needed" isn't always an intentional process, businesses forced to make cuts will find ways to make do with fewer people or, in other cases, simply won't be able to operate. In the case of a lot of small businesses, the owner and his family pick up the slack. Hell, this can be true of non-family-owned businesses as well. I've known retailers who were so understaffed that managers habitually had their wives or kids come in to help when things were really bad.

A higher headcount means that things can run more smoothly, but that's a luxury for many companies. If they need to scale back, they scale back.


---

man101 posted...

I assumed based on my ape-like sentence fragmenting you would infer I was speaking in dumbed down terms and ideas average people frame their thoughts in.

I think you misunderstand me. I perceived your mocking tone. The point is, growth is stability. Wealth is not a zero sum prospect. Wealth creation by definition is at its core a beneficial endeavor for all parties involved.

blax34dm posted...

I think you misunderstand me. I perceived your mocking tone. The point is, growth is stability. Wealth is not a zero sum prospect. Wealth creation by definition is at its core a beneficial endeavor for all parties involved.

I know. You cut out the part where I said growth at any cost. Because what I meant was a company is not satisfied unless the growth is as large as possible even if it could have still reported growth while also paying its employees more. I wasn't using terms in the strict economic sense any more.

---

Zeus posted...

And that lack of understanding is why people think you can raise the minimum wage by $7 or $8 with no impact, despite the fact that the food industry operates on relatively low margins and are constantly struggling to keep other costs down. In the case of fast food, it means franchisees are forced to hire fewer workers and work more hours themselves when, in some cases, they might already work a 60-hour week. But the general attitude among those groups is "fuck business owners" anyway

No one said it would have no impact. The point is you can raise the cost of a mcdonald's burger by a penny rather than $7 because you sell far more burgers than you have hours of pay to distribute. The problem is that when a company looks for ways to keep costs down they never consider cutting the salary of the people in charge. If they're not reporting increased revenue they cut low level employees or literally anything else in order to maintain or increase their own paycheck. If you run a company that is not growing as fast as you want it to you don't get to just pay yourself the salary you want anyway and take it out on everyone else. But that's how most major corporations behave.

---

Ok did anything get any cheaper when trump gave out massive tax cuts for the rich? No.

Then shut the fuck up.

That's the response.

A low minimum wage encourages companies to pay lower wages.

Lower wages result in lower quality work and discourages people from seeking employment.

People who won't work for substandard wages resort to two options... crime or welfare. Welfare costs the working class money. Crime costs the working class money.

So essentially, corporations are passing the buck of paying their employees onto you, the working American, and then trying to scare you into the notion that somehow taking care of their employees is going to result in a higher cost of living (when that's already happening anyway).

---

adjl posted...

It's really kind of baffling that some people seem to think that businesses are currently hiring more people than they actually need because the low minimum wage allows them to hand out some spare jobs as an act of charity. No, businesses hire however many people they need. There's sometimes room to streamline work flow such that fewer workers are needed, and that effort may become more worthwhile if minimum wage is raised (resulting in some layoffs), but the vast majority of minimum wage jobs will continue to exist regardless of the minimum wage.

I have worked many jobs that understaffed because they didn't want to pay for the whole staff each shift, im pretty sure it wasn't minimum wage related, but they'll definitely get rid of people they need to save a buck

That being said I think minimum wage should definitely go up with inflation, set it at 11 (equivalent to the highest minimum wage back in the 70s) and keep it going up with inflation

---

Lil69Leo posted...

Ok did anything get any cheaper when trump gave out massive tax cuts for the rich? No.

Then shut the fuck up.

That's the response.

It wouldnt go backwards anyway. Nobody going to just make it cheaper for no reason...
---

Old lady at the dog park last night was complaining that Biden's tax plan would make it so her friend would "only" make 400 grand a year instead of what they should make. Like, boo hoo, you'll have to sell your third mansion.

---

I don't see how anyone needs more than maybe $15k a year anyways :b

---

Lokarin posted...

I don't see how anyone needs more than maybe $15k a year anyways :b

Based on a lot of things. But some people easily need more than that for rent for a half a year...
---

Yeah, $15k is on the low side, $20-25k can keep you comfortable with savings as well. $30k needed for living is a lot unless you are investing a lot, then that's a different story, also size of family and stuff.

---

pedro45 posted...

also size of family and stuff.

byt they'd all get the money, more the merrier!

---