Australia Has $16 Minimum Wage and is the Only Rich Country to Dodge The Global REcession

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
313.9 MM - Population USA
022.3 MM - Population Australia

Yup, apple to apples…
[/quote]

What does population have to do with it?
[/quote]

The two are not comparable. Australia’s population is 7% of America’s the scale is way different. [/quote]

This is not an explanation as to why population matters, just a comparison. You have to explain why it matters not just the difference in numbers. And the difference in numbers is not an explanation.
[/quote]

You’ve never once been willing to explain why and HOW things matter, why should he humor you when you don’t bother to reciprocate to anybody?[/quote]

I’m honestly not even sure why I posted at all in here. I’ve been waiting for a video from the RealNewz explaining how my other posts are wrong. I guess Zep’s not finished editing it yet.

What’s really funny is I’d be all for increasing the minimum wage if it added value to our society. It won’t though, not in it’s current form anyway. [/quote]
So people being able to live a better life does not add value to society?

142

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
313.9 MM - Population USA
022.3 MM - Population Australia

Yup, apple to apples…
[/quote]

What does population have to do with it?
[/quote]

The two are not comparable. Australia’s population is 7% of America’s the scale is way different. [/quote]

This is not an explanation as to why population matters, just a comparison. You have to explain why it matters not just the difference in numbers. And the difference in numbers is not an explanation.
[/quote]

You’ve never once been willing to explain why and HOW things matter, why should he humor you when you don’t bother to reciprocate to anybody?[/quote]

Okay Einstein, there is evidence all over the world that things are working out when you people tell me it isn’t. Then when you can’t deliver on a defense you reach further into fantasy world and say it has to do with things like population. A comparison in numbers does nothing to refute the fact that the Aussies have a much higher minimum wage. The burden of proof is on those who say there are reasons as to why what we are told won’t work does. I simply pointed out that the Aussies have more purchasing power due to their much higher minimum wage. Even when you figure in the higher cost of living. You also have to figure in that they have a government run healthcare system and don’t have to spend money on monthly premiums and the country spends far less overall in healthcare and doesn’t run their population into BK. Another thing we are told can’t be done because it is socialist and won’t work despite the fact that most other industrialized countries have been doing it for decades. The defense about the higher wage in Australia was that the population and GDP are smaller. That is the reason I received. Weak indeed.

143

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
313.9 MM - Population USA
022.3 MM - Population Australia

Yup, apple to apples…
[/quote]

What does population have to do with it?
[/quote]

The two are not comparable. Australia’s population is 7% of America’s the scale is way different. [/quote]

This is not an explanation as to why population matters, just a comparison. You have to explain why it matters not just the difference in numbers. And the difference in numbers is not an explanation.
[/quote]

You’ve never once been willing to explain why and HOW things matter, why should he humor you when you don’t bother to reciprocate to anybody?[/quote]

I’m honestly not even sure why I posted at all in here. I’ve been waiting for a video from the RealNewz explaining how my other posts are wrong. I guess Zep’s not finished editing it yet.

What’s really funny is I’d be all for increasing the minimum wage if it added value to our society. It won’t though, not in it’s current form anyway. [/quote]
So people being able to live a better life does not add value to society?[/quote]

If minimum wage is raised and cost of living also rises proportionaly than no one at minimum wages is living a better life and those living near minimum wage suffer as well.

144

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
313.9 MM - Population USA
022.3 MM - Population Australia

Yup, apple to apples…
[/quote]

What does population have to do with it?
[/quote]

The two are not comparable. Australia’s population is 7% of America’s the scale is way different. [/quote]

This is not an explanation as to why population matters, just a comparison. You have to explain why it matters not just the difference in numbers. And the difference in numbers is not an explanation.
[/quote]

You’ve never once been willing to explain why and HOW things matter, why should he humor you when you don’t bother to reciprocate to anybody?[/quote]

Okay Einstein, there is evidence all over the world that things are working out when you people tell me it isn’t. Then when you can’t deliver on a defense you reach further into fantasy world and say it has to do with things like population. A comparison in numbers does nothing to refute the fact that the Aussies have a much higher minimum wage. The burden of proof is on those who say there are reasons as to why what we are told won’t work does. I simply pointed out that the Aussies have more purchasing power due to their much higher minimum wage. Even when you figure in the higher cost of living. You also have to figure in that they have a government run healthcare system and don’t have to spend money on monthly premiums and the country spends far less overall in healthcare and doesn’t run their population into BK. Another thing we are told can’t be done because it is socialist and won’t work despite the fact that most other industrialized countries have been doing it for decades. The defense about the higher wage in Australia was that the population and GDP are smaller. That is the reason I received. Weak indeed.
[/quote]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If true, then what is the big deal. Pay them more.[/quote]

Why?

95% of American wage workers found a way to make more than minimum wage, do we need to hold the other 5%'s hand?
[/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
the scale is way different. [/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A raise from $7.25 to $16 would = about $34.12M increase in salary expense ONLY in America. Who would pay for this increase? Mom and pop shops, individual franchise owners, and other small businesses already operating on small margins. It also means pay cuts in the form of pink slips. Which means more unemployment benefits used, which means greater tax burden.

I realize you think this would some how hurt the big nasty corporations, but it wouldn’t almost at all. [/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ll help you out by post this over here. I’d hate for your passive agreesive dig to go unnoticed.

Population and GDP matter because:
A.) They show scale. America is much larger in terms of population as a whole, which means the working class is much larger. That alone indicates the issue is more complex in America.

B.) GDP matters for a couple of reasons. First of which is the same as population. America’s GDP is larger = more complex. Secondly what comprised GDP will make a difference. Industries, exports, imports, etc…These things all add to the complexity of the issue.

You act as if salary is the end all be all. Are benefits comperable? What about tax rates? Cost of living? There are literally a 1,000 thing that make the U.S. economy and subsequently wages differnent than those of Australia, which is why:

Apples =/= apples.

I assume that an increase to minimum wage mean unemployment benefits also have to go up. The gov can’t possibly give less than minimum wage to the unemployeed. Who will pay for that?

I assume cost of living will go up as the cost of production goes up. Who will pay for that? [/quote]

145

^Can I get an original response from Zeppelin795 please? Not a clip from the RealNewz, not some economist you’ve only read about, you actual thoughts and answers to the above.

146

Oh and Australians have a higher individual tax rate.

Australia
0 ? $18,200 Nil 0%
$18,201 ? $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200 0 ? 9.7%
$37,001 ? $80,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 9.7 ? 21.9%
$80,001 ? $180,000 $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 21.9 ? 30.3%
$180,001 and over $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 30.3 ? 44.9%

America
10% $0 ? $8,925 $0 ? $17,850 $0 ? $8,925 $0 ? $12,750
15% $8,926 ? $36,250 $17,851 ? $72,500 $8,926 ? $36,250 $12,751 ? $48,600
25% $36,251 ? $87,850 $72,501 ? $146,400 $36,251 ? $73,200 $48,601 ? $125,450
28% $87,851 ? $183,250 $146,401 ? $223,050 $73,201 ? $111,525 $125,451 ? $203,150
33% $183,251 ? $398,350 $223,051 ? $398,350 $111,526 ? $199,175 $203,151 ? $398,350
35% $398,351 ? $400,000 $398,351 ? $450,000 $199,176 ? $225,000 $398,351 ? $425,000
39.6% $400,001+ $450,001+ $225,001+ $425,001+

And they are way less fat so I can imagine their health care cost less…

147

They tax minors a lot, get emmm use to the government being in control I guess…Damn 45% after $1,300 bucks wow.

Income tax for Minors[edit source | editbeta]Individuals under 18 years of age are taxed differently from adults.[7]

Taxable income Tax on this income Effective Tax Rate
$0 ? $416 Nil 0%
$416 ? $1,307 66c for each $1 over $416 0 ? 45%
$1,308 and over 45% of total income 45%

If a minor works 20 hours a week it takes a whooping 4-5 weeks to hit $1,308. So I guess every highschool kid in Australia pay 45% to the gov. Awesome!

148

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Funny how the 50’s did so good when we had the highest personal income tax rate and the highest corporate tax rate.[/quote]

Why don’t you post some of the effective tax rates of the time.

And while your at it, why don’t you discuss the tax changes of 1986, because anyone at all familiar with the IRC knows that without qualification, comparing the IRC of post 1986 to that of pre 1986 isn’t comparing apples to apples.

What happened? Well after JFK lowered tax rates or Reagan revamped the entire system?

Typical left-wing talking point that ignores substantial substance for the sake of ideological babble.

Pretty sure there were chartered corporations alive and well in America before ratification, let alone after.

149

Definition of ‘Cost Of Goods Sold - COGS’
The direct costs attributable to the production of the goods sold by a company. This amount includes the cost of the materials used in creating the good along with the direct labor costs used to produce the good. It excludes indirect expenses such as distribution costs and sales force costs. COGS appears on the income statement and can be deducted from revenue to calculate a company’s gross margin. Also referred to as “cost of sales.”

So in Australia a person get’s $16 to flip 30 hamburgers an hour as opposed to in America where the same person gets $7.25. Let’s assume the remianing COGS for a hamburger = $0.30

That’s $0.83 COGS per burger in Australia.
That’s $0.54 COGS per Burger in America.
They sell for $1 whole dollar

Who pays for the $0.29 increase in cost per burger?

150

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Funny how the 50’s did so good when we had the highest personal income tax rate and the highest corporate tax rate.[/quote]

Why don’t you post some of the effective tax rates of the time.

And while your at it, why don’t you discuss the tax changes of 1986, because anyone at all familiar with the IRC knows that without qualification, comparing the IRC of post 1986 to that of pre 1986 isn’t comparing apples to apples.

What happened? Well after JFK lowered tax rates or Reagan revamped the entire system?

Typical left-wing talking point that ignores substantial substance for the sake of ideological babble.

Pretty sure there were chartered corporations alive and well in America before ratification, let alone after.

[/quote]

Hmmm I haven’t seen this exact same dialogue play out on here before.

Let me see if I can find my tap shoes so I can dance around your questions with Zep.

151

All “corporation” is just a formation of business to facilitate capital (ownership). That is it.

Business formation by itself cannot be “evil” like the left likes to claim. All it does is facilitate ownership of capital.

Anything a corporation does or doesn’t do that is “evil” is still the act of men and women making the choice to do so.

How on Earth people can reconcile that government is good but corporations are bad, when as far as any action taken is concerned, they are the same thing (a group of people making a choice), is beyond me.

152

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
All “corporation” is just a formation of business to facilitate capital (ownership). That is it.

Business formation by itself cannot be “evil” like the left likes to claim. All it does is facilitate ownership of capital.

Anything a corporation does or doesn’t do that is “evil” is still the act of men and women making the choice to do so.

How on Earth people can reconcile that government is good but corporations are bad, when as far as any action taken is concerned, they are the same thing (a group of people making a choice), is beyond me. [/quote]

There are no Corporations only the Government…The Government owns all the capital. That is what Zep wants, and that is Communism.

153

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

A comparison in numbers does nothing to refute the fact that the Aussies have a much higher minimum wage.

The burden of proof is on those who say there are reasons as to why what we are told won’t work does. I simply pointed out that the Aussies have more purchasing power due to their much higher minimum wage. Even when you figure in the higher cost of living.
[/quote]

LOL. You don’t get it do you? EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that Aussies have a higher minimum wage. Nobody has ever denied that. Hell, the Thread title states it and I don’t see anybody arguing that the U.S.'s minimum wage is higher. If they’re there, why don’t you quote them please?

You “pointed out” a fucking falsehood–Americans have more purchasing power by the metrics. Not the Aussies. This was even confirmed by a resident Australian.

Americans have a higher median household income

Americans have a higher purchasing power

Americans have a lower COST of living.

In other words, everything you just “pointed out” was 100% wrong, and in fact is the opposite of reality, and has already been linked and sourced in this thread. And the best that you can come up with is continuing to misdirect. It all has yet to be refuted by you because you are incapable of doing anything except repeating your ideologically driven talking points like a broken record. You are married to your ideology.

154

This is just a prime example of someone stuck in “grass is greener” syndrome. They think everyone else is doing it better, when in fact they don’t truly know all of the implications, issues, and scenarios that result from what they see as a “better” solution.

That is all.

155

The origin of a Corporation started back in the day where sailing across the globe could be a major liability . So the started a Corporation to limit the liability to the amount invested . It is no longer such a vehicle .

156

However unfortunate it may be for the narrative, incorporation of a company is very much still a vehicle who’s function is to limit liability and facilitate capital (ownership)…

157

The problem with today’s (LARGE) corporations is it is also a tool to allow the large Corp. not to have to compete with the LLC. When one tax rate is %0 and the other is over %30 that is a huge operating advantage .

Another issue is legalized bribery , We allow some Corps that have disposable income to write off contributions to elect certain politicians .
The problem with that is that is how large corporations are avoiding a head to head competition with LLCs

158

Allow me to highlight some bright spots:

1: [i]

Political Contributions

You cannot deduct contributions made to a political candidate, a campaign committee, or a newsletter fund. Advertisements in convention bulletins and admissions to dinners or programs that benefit a political party or political candidate are not deductible.
[/i]

2: [i]

Lobbying Expenses

You generally cannot deduct amounts paid or incurred for lobbying expenses. These include expenses to:

Influence legislation,

Participate, or intervene, in any political campaign for, or against, any candidate for public office,

Attempt to influence the general public, or segments of the public, about elections, legislative matters, or referendums, or

Communicate directly with covered executive branch officials in any attempt to influence the official actions or positions of those officials.

Lobbying expenses also include any amounts paid or incurred for research, preparation, planning, or coordination of any of these activities.

Covered executive branch official. A covered executive branch official, for the purpose of (4) above, is any of the following officials.
?
The President.

?
The Vice President.

?
Any officer or employee of the White House Office of the Executive Office of the President, and the two most senior level officers of each of the other agencies in the Executive Office.

?
Any individual serving in a position in Level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of Title 5, United States Code, any other individual designated by the President as having Cabinet-level status, and any immediate deputy of one of these individuals.

Dues used for lobbying. If a tax-exempt organization notifies you that part of the dues or other amounts you pay to the organization are used to pay nondeductible lobbying expenses, you cannot deduct that part.

Exceptions. You can deduct certain lobbying expenses if they are ordinary and necessary expenses of carrying on your trade or business.
?
You can deduct expenses for attempting to influence the legislation of any local council or similar governing body (local legislation). An Indian tribal government is considered a local council or similar governing body.

?
You can deduct in-house expenses for influencing legislation or communicating directly with a covered executive branch official if the expenses for the tax year are not more than $2,000 (not counting overhead expenses).

?
If you are a professional lobbyist, you can deduct the expenses you incur in the trade or business of lobbying on behalf of another person. Payments by the other person to you for lobbying activities cannot be deducted.

[/i]

159

Two main differences between an LLC and a C-Corp. (As the differences between an LLC and S-Corp are slight, in the Macro sense).

  1. Taxation - C’s pay at the entity level, LLC’s pass through income/loss to its members.
  2. Distribution of capital returns - C’s need to issue dividends, you need profit to issue a dividend. Therefore you pay tax at the entity level on the profit, and then the shareholder pays tax on the dividend received. LLC can distribute capital out to its member’s to pay the tax bills , and that distribution isn’t taxable as long as the member has basis in the LLC

#2 pretty much equals out the taxation disparity. In other words, the disparity isn’t really there.

160

wait their are regulations governing the taxation of entities, hmmm.