15 an hour is too much IMHO...but Obama supported the 10.10 plan and Trump feels 10 should be the federal MW according to his own quotes...either way, 7.25 is too low.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

If corporations are going to be responsible to pay for their employees public assistance that's fine with me...in turn I want a tax cut for the amount the government would not be paying to provide those benefits.

(08-26-2018 09:54 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

If corporations are going to be responsible to pay for their employees public assistance that's fine with me...in turn I want a tax cut for the amount the government would not be paying to provide those benefits.

Took longer than I thought it would but

(08-26-2018 09:12 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 09:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I think this is a horrible idea and another reason why Sanders and his ilk are a threat to America's future.

I have no problem helping those in need that work through some type of workfare program and subsidizing those that simply can not take care of themselves due to a physical or mental prohibition. I think we can find the funds to handle this without doing what ever Liberal do-gooder instantly does...."bring a gun into the room" and use the force of government to solve the problem.

trying to 'do-good' isn't a bad thing...

Im all for doing good....Just try and avoid using violence in the process. We need to look to innovation, creativity and market solutions before we decide to use force. The "do-gooders" of which are just lazy people with little imagination or motivation to actually solve problems. They instantly look to the government for help instead of actually DOING something. There are ways to solve problems without the use of force.

(08-26-2018 09:25 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  15 an hour is too much IMHO...but Obama supported the 10.10 plan and Trump feels 10 should be the federal MW according to his own quotes...either way, 7.25 is too low.

I oppose the minimum wage..but..for the purpose of discussion I would propose that it should be based upon the standard of living of your location not a governmental one size fits all figure. 10 per hour is fine in rural America where the cost of living is less...not so much in urban areas.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

I can go along with no federal $$$ to corporations. But the feds have no input on state or local dollars.


I would also be in favor of no corporate money going to politicians.

I wonder if Bernie would support that.

(08-25-2018 09:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like your first paragraph Hambone and that is a fair argument. Sounds like an argument for being pro choice though.

I AM pro choice. I just want the choice made as early as possible. Shouldn't take 20 weeks to decide what to do if something unexpected happens... you should know BEFORE YOU HAVE SEX what you would do, and then if it happens (once you find out, which if you're sexually active you should be regularly checking) do it.

(08-26-2018 08:42 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 04:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Then why don't you and those who agree with you band together and live in a self-governed community and enact such things.... and see what happens.

I think that's California...

Sort of.... which is why I said 'almost'....

It IS SF, but then they also tax CV farmers to pay for high speed rail to SF rather than dams that would lessen the impact of water 'taken' by voters in LA....

I'm perfectly fine with SF or NY having a $15 min wage and bearing the consequences (and benefits) of it... and if it is a good thing, then others would adopt it.

What I don't like is taxing people who don't get the $15 wage to pay for the negative consequences of the $15 wage.... because THEN the impact is not 'fair'... unless we're going to tax China to pay for our national min wage.