[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
wait their are regulations governing the taxation of entities, hmmm. [/quote]
No, corporations are actually lawless, evil autonomous beings of wonder that enslave humans, pay zero tax and ruin the world.
At least that is what a message board tells me.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
wait their are regulations governing the taxation of entities, hmmm. [/quote]
No, corporations are actually lawless, evil autonomous beings of wonder that enslave humans, pay zero tax and ruin the world.
At least that is what a message board tells me. [/quote]
CB, I told you to stay away from darealnewz.omg…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
wait their are regulations governing the taxation of entities, hmmm. [/quote]
No, corporations are actually lawless, evil autonomous beings of wonder that enslave humans, pay zero tax and ruin the world.
At least that is what a message board tells me. [/quote]
CB, I told you to stay away from darealnewz.omg…[/quote]
I love the .omg, gets me lol’n everytime.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
wait their are regulations governing the taxation of entities, hmmm. [/quote]
No, corporations are actually lawless, evil autonomous beings of wonder that enslave humans, pay zero tax and ruin the world.
At least that is what a message board tells me. [/quote]
CB, I told you to stay away from darealnewz.omg…[/quote]
I love the .omg, gets me lol’n everytime. [/quote]
CB came up with it. I lol everytime also.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
The overall point I was trying to make which obviously is lost on you is that the Aussies have a better wage and living standard in spite of the higher cost of living et. al. We are consistently told by people that when you raise the minimum wage it will have a devastating effect on the economy. Obviously that is not true. And the Aussie’s prove so. Of course there are people who will look away from the evidence because it doesn’t jive with their pre-concieved notions of the economy. So instead of admitting that there may be a better way to organize the economy they blame things like population difference or the difference in GDP as to why. No evidence for these positions just the difference in numbers as proof. Indeed.
[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]
At least in government people are elected by the population. Not true in a corporation.
Not sure anyone claims an inanimate object as being evil.
But people like Romney claim corporations are people.
.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
At least in government people are elected by the population. Not true in a corporation.[/quote]
If said corporation is public, anyone in the population can become a shareholder. Then these shareholders elect the board. The board then hires a CEO. The board and CEO then run the company.
So therefore, in a public company, yes, technically it works very similar to the current government organization in the US.
[quote]Not sure anyone claims an inanimate object as being evil.
But people like Romney claim corporations are people.[/quote]
hmmm.
Employees of a corp? People
CEO, CFO, COO? People
Board? Yup more people
Shareholders? ahhhh… Maybe another CORP owns some shares, well breaks down the same way, ultimately people in charge. Maybe a FUND owns shares… oooohhhh got me now… Oops, no, wait, people still sun the fund.
So yeah, comprised of people, run by people, organized by people, funded by people…
I get Romney’s point.
[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]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^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. [/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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…
[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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![/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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?[/quote]
Still waiting on that insight Zep?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^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. [/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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…
[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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![/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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?[/quote]
Still waiting on that insight Zep?[/quote]
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
Why? Because YOU say so?
True statist sentiment: Ideas so good they should be forced upon you.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?
What about the fact that those under 18 will be giving 45% of that $16 bucks right back.
Let me see, 45% of $16 is $7.25 so they really only make $8.75 an hour. So now there $8.75 buys less, awesome.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
Why? Because YOU say so?
True statist sentiment: Ideas so good they should be forced upon you. [/quote]
No so people can live a better life, something you obviously don’t care about. Australia is a perfect example.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?[/quote]
So some people will now have more money to spend which creates demand due to the increased spending which means_______________?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What about the fact that those under 18 will be giving 45% of that $16 bucks right back.
Let me see, 45% of $16 is $7.25 so they really only make $8.75 an hour. So now there $8.75 buys less, awesome. [/quote]
You have to explain why their economy wasn’t hit by recession if this doesn’t work.
And how do you figure the income tax bracket for less than 37k a year is 45%?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What about the fact that those under 18 will be giving 45% of that $16 bucks right back.
Let me see, 45% of $16 is $7.25 so they really only make $8.75 an hour. So now there $8.75 buys less, awesome. [/quote]
You have to explain why their economy wasn’t hit by recession if this doesn’t work.
And how do you figure the income tax bracket for less than 37k a year is 45%?
[/quote]
What is their entitlement spending like? Have they had any large bubbles pushed for by an inept government? Do they have rampant corruption at every level to the extent we do in our government? Do they have the large amounts of indigents we do?
I don’t know the answer to this, but my guess is no. Our problems run much deeper than minimum wage. Minimum wage is like a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of our problems.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?[/quote]
So some people will now have more money to spend which creates demand due to the increased spending which means_______________?[/quote]
They will spend more on the same goods they normally buy, ie a $2 hamburger that use to be $1.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What about the fact that those under 18 will be giving 45% of that $16 bucks right back.
Let me see, 45% of $16 is $7.25 so they really only make $8.75 an hour. So now there $8.75 buys less, awesome. [/quote]
You have to explain why their economy wasn’t hit by recession if this doesn’t work.
And how do you figure the income tax bracket for less than 37k a year is 45%?
[/quote]
I don’t have to explain anything, but since you asked so nicely. I linked the “youth” tax bracket info a page or so ago.
As far as the recession goes if they didn’t get hit by the recession and I had to wager a guess I’d say it was because their main five exports include fossil fuels and gold, all of which went up in cost over the last few years.
Their economy is different another reason GDP matters, lol.