Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"You can't both have a higher minimum wage and prevent employers from cutting back."
sure you can. you give them (the small businesses) tax cuts to compensate. you prefer to give tax cuts to the giants however. very productive

"I'd even rather give low wage employees taxpayer cash as an incentive to work (which we already do - it's called the earned inc ...[text shortened]... orth, it can be deducted from your taxes.

why this fear to tax the giants who can afford it?

The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea. Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours). Moreover, the EITC money is not taxable income to the employee, whereas minimum wage money is.

So, you're advocating giving businesses money instead of the EITC's giving case to low income wage earners, while the EITC maintains the employer incentive to hire by keeping the minimum wage low. I like the EITC better.

Originally posted by sh76
The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea. Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours). Moreover, the EITC money is not taxable income to the employee, whereas minimum wage money is.

So, you're advocating giving businesse ...[text shortened]... aintains the employer incentive to hire by keeping the minimum wage low. I like the EITC better.

"The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea"
6k extra, payable by all the taxpayers is not more friendly.

"Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours)"
only small businesses will do that. and i covered that issue. you give tax cuts to small businesses, not the super rich.
"Moreover, the EITC money is not taxable income to the employee, whereas minimum wage money is. "
non-issue.

Originally posted by sh76
The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea. Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours). Moreover, the EITC money is not taxable income to the employee, whereas minimum wage money is.

So, you're advocating giving businesse ...[text shortened]... aintains the employer incentive to hire by keeping the minimum wage low. I like the EITC better.

Earned Income Tax Credit is friendly to the employer. It is a salary expense that the employer gets to evade letting the taxpayer pick up the tab.

Originally posted by Eladar
Earned Income Tax Credit is friendly to the employer. It is a salary expense that the employer gets to evade letting the taxpayer pick up the tab.

Totally disagree.

Wages are governed by the market, not the wants of the employees. Were it not for the EITC, employers would probably have to pick up very little, if any, of that tab. The workers would simply be left with less cash.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea"
6k extra, payable by all the taxpayers is not more friendly.

"Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours)"
only small businesses will do that. and i covered that issue. yo ...[text shortened]... e EITC money is not taxable income to the employee, whereas minimum wage money is. "
non-issue.

==="The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea"
6k extra, payable by all the taxpayers is not more friendly. ===

Of course it is. It's cash.


==="Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours)"
only small businesses will do that. and i covered that issue. you give tax cuts to small businesses, not the super rich. ===

Even assuming such (a dubious assumption), most people are employed in small businesses.


===="Moreover, the EITC money is not taxable income to the employee, whereas minimum wage money is. "
non-issue.====

Care to explain why it's a non-issue?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no.
you don't need 15$/hour in india .

a banker will make more than an average doctor who will make more than a nurse who will make more than a janitor. we can't change that and we shouldn't. there will always be jobs that are valued more than others. there will always be people with different skills
but that doesn't mean a janitor should make so lit ...[text shortened]... m wage is the bare minimum one should make and it should reflect the prosperity of that society.

Not everyone needs the goobermint mandated minimum.

With that "no" zahlanzi, you're proven to be a hypocrite.

Some people in India do need $15 an hour. For the same reason there shouldn't be a world wide minimum wage, that is the same reason there shouldn't be a country wide minimum wage.

And so now you see how the previous link I posted about union hypocrisy ties in with your own hypocrisy. That's the point

An hour of your time, who does it belong to?

Originally posted by sh76
==="The EITC is much more friendly to the employee than your idea"
6k extra, payable by all the taxpayers is not more friendly. ===

Of course it is. It's cash.


==="Under your idea, it's still the employer's call whether to pay the wages or cut back on human resources and not hire them to begin with (or cut employees' hours)"
only small businesses will ...[text shortened]... loyee, whereas minimum wage money is. "
non-issue.====

Care to explain why it's a non-issue?

"Of course it is. It's cash."
paid for by every tax payer. including the ones that need it.

"most people are employed in small businesses. "
and again, i covered that. you give tax cuts to those businesses to compensate. you help them become giants who will then afford to pay decent wages out of their own pockets.

"Care to explain why it's a non-issue?"
i don't care where my money comes from. it could be parachuted from the sky for all i care.

either you forgive the worker for paying 3 dollars per hour or you make the employer to give him 3 dollars plus tax and then ask for that tax, it is the same.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Not everyone needs the goobermint mandated minimum.

With that "no" zahlanzi, you're proven to be a hypocrite.

Some people in India do need $15 an hour. For the same reason there shouldn't be a world wide minimum wage, that is the same reason there shouldn't be a country wide minimum wage.

And so now you see how the previous link I posted about uni ...[text shortened]... es in with your own hypocrisy. That's the point

An hour of your time, who does it belong to?

wow, it so simple to win at debating when you're wajoma. just declare you won at debating and presto! no need for further arguing.

"Some people in India do need $15 an hour"
that's idiotic. "some" people in india need 15$ an hour the same way some american jerkbags complain they are almost poor with 200 000 a year.

we are talking about a minimum wage necessary to live with dignity. i don't care that
some people's idea of bare minimum is driving 2 cars, two kids in ivy league colleges, a summer home and appartment in manhattan.

if your society is so awesome, by all means, raise the minimum as much as you want.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

we are talking about a minimum wage necessary to live with dignity..

No, we're talking about who owns your time.

We're talking about you banning people from trading their own time as the see fit.

We're talking about your claim on the lives of other people.

If people can live with dignity on less that $15 and hour in India people can live with dignity on less than $15 an hour anywhere.

Your hypocrisy has been exposed, the only way for you to be consistent is to advocate a worldwide standard minimum wage regardless of skills, drive, attitude, qualifications.

Because there are people able to live with dignity on no wages. So 'the live with dignity' argument just fell flat.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No, we're talking about who owns your time.

We're talking about you banning people from trading their own time as the see fit.

We're talking about your claim on the lives of other people.

If people can live with dignity on less that $15 and hour in India people can live with dignity on less than $15 an hour anywhere.

Your hypocrisy has been ex ...[text shortened]... ople able to live with dignity on no wages. So 'the live with dignity' argument just fell flat.

If you choose to use currency then what your time is worth is already determined by other people.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you choose to use currency then what your time is worth is already determined by other people.

Totally unrelated to the totally minimum wage.

Originally posted by sh76
Totally disagree.

Wages are governed by the market, not the wants of the employees. Were it not for the EITC, employers would probably have to pick up very little, if any, of that tab. The workers would simply be left with less cash.

"Were it not for the EITC,"
are you under the impression one cannot implement both? a minimum wage and an EITC?

Originally posted by Wajoma
No, we're talking about who owns your time.

We're talking about you banning people from trading their own time as the see fit.

We're talking about your claim on the lives of other people.

If people can live with dignity on less that $15 and hour in India people can live with dignity on less than $15 an hour anywhere.

Your hypocrisy has been ex ...[text shortened]... ople able to live with dignity on no wages. So 'the live with dignity' argument just fell flat.

"No, we're talking about who owns your time. "
that nonsense again

"We're talking about you banning people from trading their own time as the see fit."
one can trade as they see fit, but the trading starts from X dollars, along with other restrictions because of course we don't allow people from trading "their own time" as they see fit.

"If people can live with dignity on less that $15 and hour in India people can live with dignity on less than $15 an hour anywhere."
that's too retarded to argue.


"Your hypocrisy has been exposed",
wajoma style
" the only way for you to be consistent"
oh no, i am out of options.
" is to advocate a worldwide standard minimum wage regardless of skills, drive, attitude, qualifications."
yes, let's do that. i will be able to buy a car in romania, have money for food, bills and utilities, pay mortgage rates on a 2 room apartment. an american will be able to afford a nice buss pass which he will have to take between is second and third minimum wage job. i won't care, i will be at home watching tv. or sleeping.

damn, you tricked me into arguing your brain fart after all. well played sir, well played

"Because there are people able to live with dignity on no wages."
as long as someone else with a wage is supporting them.

" So 'the live with dignity' argument just fell flat"
wajoma style. you just shouted nonsense at it until it lost the will to live

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"No, we're talking about who owns your time. "
that nonsense again

You don't regard an hour of your time as being yours?

Whose do you think it is? Who does it belong to? "society"? Which "society"?