What concrete proof of anything has come out?
In the USSR…
I can say what I want, so can you.
I don’t know the history of the minimum here and am curious.
Apologies, that came out incorrectly.
Minimum wage is measured year over year against inflation and changes, whether up or down, are historically quoted as moving against/with inflation
By downfall I was referring to how the GOP used to have principles, while these days nothing is more important than sticking it to the Dems
Also, you asked the appeal of voting Dem. You don’t have to personally believe them for them to be appealing
2 Likes
Or you know… the much lower tax bill for most working Americans. Forget about budget deficits… It’s all monopoly money anyway right?
Maybe when they were abolitionists… not really since.
Well, in your defense my paycheck did increase by over 8 dollars
(My family is in the 91900-191650 tax bracket, not sure what it is for 2018 yet)
Have you found anything definitive on the 2018 tax plan yet (for planning purposes)? I haven’t and, based on my prior returns,I’m thinking I might be paying more as I’ve itemized about $25k each of the last few years. That puts me right at the new standard deduction amount, but I’ll lose the $16k in personal exemptions.
1 Like
I’ve been trying to figure this out as well.
We had about 16K in deductions this year (married filing jointly). Had there been no changes to tax law, next year we would have had a lot more (full year of mortgage interest vs 4 months this year; full year of property taxes being the two biggest items, and we’re having a kid). I’m very loosely trying to do some math and figure out what next year will look like, but I’m probably going to err on the side of withholding a little extra and being pleasantly surprised if I miscalculated.
2 Likes
Not particularly. Historically I’ve been pretty close to that line between “take the fed deduction” and “itemize on your own” so I believe I’m the demographic that wasn’t supposed to see big changes.
I pity CA people. Mortgage company I used to work at said the high value states (CA, FL, etc) have had their respective mortgage industries crippled irt the refinance game (roughly 20% of non jumbo national mortgages iirc)
1 Like
Kiwi commies.
The first modern national minimum wages were enacted by the government recognition of unions which in turn established minimum wage policy among their members, as in New Zealand in 1894, followed by Australia in 1896 and the United Kingdom in 1909
2 Likes
I don’t believe them, nor do I think them appealing. Obama ruled for 8 years and did he accomplish this pipe dream? No, he divided the country giving us Trump.
These ideas sound good but they don’t work in reality and never have.
We have a divided country hiding behind social media. Everything I say I would say to your face without shame.
My family suffered through social justice reforms. But all those reforms took the form of oppression with great detriment to my family’s well-being. Forgive me for being unsupportive, I lived the consequences of all this equality. It turned out to be the greatest of inequality and repression man has ever known and it can be counted by quarts or grams of blood depending on whether you favor the English system or metric.
The freedom to be socially or fiscally inequal is what freedom is. Forced equalization is oppression.
I’ve seen it and experienced it. I believe in the choice of being equal or not. I don’t support forced equality. And I never will.
I believe in equal opportunity. I do not support forcing equality. That is oppression.
Cool?
Silly Obama. Spawning the mouth breather infested birther movement. Dividing the country with his Muslim Antichrist ways
As an example, was legalizing gay marriage forced equality, or equal opportunity?
Is forcing equality a reaction to forced inequality?
If a person believes in fiscal conservativism (note, not ‘the party’) this is a non starter, and it has nothing to do with hating poor people. It has to do with the fact that a) you believe people deserve to keep more of their own money and b) the spending we have currently is irresponsible.
Not so attractive.
Fair, but for me not enough to sway me to vote for the rest of their baggage. May be for some though, good point.
Non-starter. BOTH parties are up to their eyes in illegal bullshit–I don’t buy this as a reason to vote “for” a party level at all…both sides are dirty as hell.
Fair
5 Likes
Yes, and also that was a stereotypical response to a stereotypical question from you (“what’s the appeal of voting GoP, don’t take my guns and build a wall?”). 
He was just throwing it back
1 Like
No he didn’t.
The Country always was, and probably always will be divided, Pat.
If anything…President Obama brought out a LOT of people’s true stripes…
3 Likes
Counter: have you seen evidence in recent years that fiscal conservatism exists at fed level? If fiscal conservatism isn’t going to exist either way, there’s no value add to let it influence voting patterns
Same, but then again, neither of us would see the positive aspects of a min wage hike, as we aren’t min wage workers
Agreed. But in recent years Dems/GOP have been painted as corrupt (drain the swamp?). As the playing field is now level irt Trump being equally (ie, visibly corrupt) he suffers a drawback, which is a net gain to Dems
I don’t mind stereotypical responses, I was referring to Pat’s constant whataboutism to HRC. It’s only effective while HRC is the enemy. As she’s gone, the GOP is left with a stirred up angry base and no bad guys to put blame on
In my statement, I also included “if youre not upper class” as the benefits to voting red are pretty clear when you’re wealthy
1 Like
(I hope you know by now, Pat, that I’m not “picking” on you…in fact, many of you post make me think…)
I THINK I know what you saying…but I hope you can offer some clarification.
I hope you are not equating “Social Justice Reforms” with the granting of basic CONSTITUTIONAL rights granted to all Americans that were denied to millions.
In other words; millions of Americans would probably still not be able to Vote; attend certain institutions of higher learning; and would be suffering under Jim Crow Laws if other individuals were not forced BY LAW to FOLLOW CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES.
This isn’t hypothetical. When people are truly given that freedom to segregate and “freedom of association” (which is their right)…they segregate. That does not give them the freedom to also deny others basic Constitutional Rights.
1 Like