Grafton, NH

Quote: Mission146

Executive Branch = Enforcement. POTUS can order the IRS not to enforce something like that. Such enforcement probably isn’t even particularly profitable; it definitely wouldn’t be (much less provable, as well) if so many transactions weren’t electronic.

Don’t know if you noticed, but I’m pretty big on not putting the squeeze on the lowest income Americans, much less worrying about getting a piece of college students doing odd jobs.

Joe tried that with student loan repayment and SCOTUS overruled him.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Joe tried that with student loan repayment and SCOTUS overruled him.

I’d have to read their decision to offer comment; I wasn’t aware of that. I can probably get around to that late next week, do feel free to remind me.

I really don’t know how SCOTUS could overrule non-enforcement of that particular tax law. I’ll have to see if their reasoning in the student loan decision could also apply. We really don’t need SCOTUS to exercise more power than it already does. I guess that’s one of the benefits of not being accountable to anybody.

Quote: Mission146

The whole, "You're not really a Libertarian unless you're an Anarchist," position wasn't that great of one the first 14,287 times I've heard it and it's no better now.

You have to look at things on balance. On balance, we're less socially restrictive than both Democrats AND Republicans, generally speaking. We definitely want the central Government to have less economic control, and fewer regulations, than Democrats...and arguably also Republicans.

If you look at my other positions, here's what you have:

1.) Eliminate Social Security (except disability) in its entirety. Pay out all monies that were paid into the system on a first-in, first-out basis.

2.) Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, on the Federal level.

3.) Eliminate Federal Personal Income Tax.

4.) Eliminate all Federal funding of public education.

5.) Eliminate food stamp funding, at the Federal level, as well as all other social safety nets.

6.) Eliminate A LOT of departments, in their entirety. Sell lots of Government-owned property to private interests.

7.) Eliminate HUD and make that the purview of individual states.

I would say, on balance, I am for less Federal Government control than there currently is, but maybe you disagree.

Oh, discontinue the Federal funding/backing of student loans. That's a big one. This list is by no means comprehensive.

Basically you are like the rest of us. We all want to be King and choose only the parts of any particular philosophy that we personally claim to follow. The rest you throw out because, after all you know in your heart they are wrong.

Quote: Mission146

I’d have to read their decision to offer comment; I wasn’t aware of that. I can probably get around to that late next week, do feel free to remind me.

I really don’t know how SCOTUS could overrule non-enforcement of that particular tax law. I’ll have to see if their reasoning in the student loan decision could also apply. We really don’t need SCOTUS to exercise more power than it already does. I guess that’s one of the benefits of not being accountable to anybody.

Pretty simple. Non-enforcement is de facto repeal. If a POTUS wants a law removed they are supposed to go to to Congress to get rid of it. Otherwise we are a dictatorship.

Geno has asked why we thought he didn't agree with Mission's idea for the MW, to prove it
Since I was first to say that he didn't like it, here is what made me think so

Quote: GenoDRPh

So if inflation goes down, you'd allow employers to reduce wages of existing employees?

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3876/0/#post210340
this seemed like nit-picking on a point that no one could sincerely care about, since deflation basically never sustainably happens anymore

Quote: GenoDRPh

You didn't answer the question. So, no, you didn't make it clear. Again, how would your policy change current practice for employers who already pay above MW?

And I note that, aside from your conspiratorial rant, all opposite to increasing MW comes from the right side of the aisle.

That being said, if you want to increase the MW and index it to inflation so that it never decreases in cases of deflation, you'll get no argument from me. You'll need to convince the GOP.

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3876/1/#post210350
Here, although you say " [IF so and so] you'll get no argument from me ", you clearly don't accept it *as is*. And you indicate an objection to what you call a 'rant' ... what were we supposed to think?

And, basically, engaging as turd-in-the-punchbowl just gives the message " I don't like it" . In response, Mission put out more very long posts indicating his frustration that you didn't like his proposal. So I will say you are being disingenuous to later ask "where did I say I didn't like it?" Furthermore I suspect strongly that you know the Democrats have rejected reasonable MW proposals and you just have a reflexive instinct to go along with it.

Quote: odiousgambit

Geno has asked why we thought he didn't agree with Mission's idea for the MW, to prove it
Since I was first to say that he didn't like it, here is what made me think so

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3876/0/#post210340
this seemed like nit-picking on a point that no one could sincerely care about, since deflation basically never sustainably happens anymore
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3876/1/#post210350
Here, although you say " [IF so and so] you'll get no argument from me ", you clearly don't accept it *as is*. And you indicate an objection to what you call a 'rant' ... what were we supposed to think?

And, basically, engaging as turd-in-the-punchbowl just gives the message " I don't like it" . In response, Mission put out more very long posts indicating his frustration that you didn't like his proposal. So I will say you are being disingenuous to later ask "where did I say I didn't like it?" Furthermore I suspect strongly that you know the Democrats have rejected reasonable MW proposals and you just have a reflexive instinct to go along with it.

Great post! Thank you very much!

That's the main problem we have in this country is the fact that we go straight to partisan bickering rather than actually fixing problems. I don't have an actual percentage on this, but I strongly suspect well over 50% of Americans would believe that there should have been a non-zero minimum wage increase in what's about to be fifteen years.

It also doesn't make me a non-Libertarian, which seems to be the attack against my ideas that multiple people want to pull. Honestly, I don't know why they would care if I'm an ideologically pure Libertarian, or not, but I'm just talking about what could be done in the system that already exists. The system that already exists absolutely sucks, but nothing can really be done about that; we can't wholesale destroy and rebuild the system, but there are changes that can be made. If I could be an absolute dictator, obviously, my system would be totally different.

In the meantime, we do have a problem with wages being too low for the lowest income Americans. Many Republicans would wag their fingers at many of these low-income households and the way they run their finances, despite the fact that the Federal Government runs its finances in exactly the same way. If the Federal Government were a household, it would have been forced into bankruptcy many times over.

Anyway, if most people would agree that there should be some increase to the Federal Minimum Wage, the amount and structure of which notwithstanding, then the ones to blame for that not happening are the Democrats and the Republicans. I'd say the Democrats to a slightly greater extent, because they're holding out, at least as of right now, for something that they know they will never get. You could accuse Republicans of doing the same thing, but the Republican proposal is WAY more moderate (and probably a little too moderate for my liking), so there comes a time one should accept something as a better-than-nothing improvement. There's probably even some middle room there for a greater four-year target, but I doubt either side is willing to budge an inch on their proposals.

So, it's the Government's fault, no matter how you slice it. Regardless of what side of the aisle a person shills for, they're still shilling for a party at fault.

The next possible objection I see is why would I target $12-$13 in three years when, if my plan went into effect in 2009, it would be just under $10/hour. The answer to that is that it's compensatory and hopefully would make up a little for fifteen years of no change.

Fifteen years is comically absurd. While I appreciate that, for the vast majority of people, minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be lifetime jobs...how can we justify the equivalent of someone working somewhere for fifteen years and never getting a raise?

There's also the question of relative spending power. In 2009, $7.25 was just $7.25, but $7.25 (cash) can get you what you could get for $5.07 back then. Again, the vast, vast, majority of people don't make Federal Minimum Wage, but if nobody was, that would mean it's actually not doing anything and needs to be increased to set a hard floor. In any event, why should some high school or college student be doing a job, in 2023, such that they only get a guaranteed $5.07 in spending power (relative to 2009) when, in 2009, it was $7.25 in spending power?

With that, it's no surprise when some people don't want to work. The benefits of doing so aren't what they were and they weren't that great then. The job experience argument is b******* because not that many employers really care all that much. The trade/college argument is b******* because, taken to its logical extreme, not everyone can work in the fields that have been mentioned. Even if everyone could theoretically work in those fields, then those fields would command less money because the amount of labor supply would be obscene.

Quote: odiousgambit

Geno has asked why we thought he didn't agree with Mission's idea for the MW, to prove it
Since I was first to say that he didn't like it, here is what made me think so

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3876/0/#post210340
this seemed like nit-picking on a point that no one could sincerely care about, since deflation basically never sustainably happens anymore
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3876/1/#post210350
Here, although you say " [IF so and so] you'll get no argument from me ", you clearly don't accept it *as is*. And you indicate an objection to what you call a 'rant' ... what were we supposed to think?

And, basically, engaging as turd-in-the-punchbowl just gives the message " I don't like it" . In response, Mission put out more very long posts indicating his frustration that you didn't like his proposal. So I will say you are being disingenuous to later ask "where did I say I didn't like it?" Furthermore I suspect strongly that you know the Democrats have rejected reasonable MW proposals and you just have a reflexive instinct to go along with it.

You all are getting your pretty tidy whities all up in a bunch because I asked for a clarification of Mission's MW proposal to index MW to inflation. I asked him what would he do if there was deflation, and you'd think I asked some sort of taboo question. What TF do you think "index to inflation" means? Here we also see the larger problem with libertarian or contrarian ideas. When pressed for details how it would apply in certain, non-standard scenarios, they fall apart, or at least need more work.

As for "accepting it 'as is'", I note that I did indeed accept Mission's proposal as is, Can anyone indicate otherwise? I dare you to try. But I am not a Republican in Congress. And, no, opposition to increasing the MW isn't coming from Democrats. Otherwise, we'd have had an increase already.

Quote: Mission146

I’d have to read their decision to offer comment; I wasn’t aware of that. I can probably get around to that late next week, do feel free to remind me.

I really don’t know how SCOTUS could overrule non-enforcement of that particular tax law. I’ll have to see if their reasoning in the student loan decision could also apply. We really don’t need SCOTUS to exercise more power than it already does. I guess that’s one of the benefits of not being accountable to anybody.

I advise you to keep current on current events, if you are going to speak knowledgably about them:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%20strikes%20down%20Biden%20student%2Dloan%20forgiveness%20program,-By%20Amy%20Howe&text=By%20a%20vote%20of%206,%24400%20billion%20in%20student%20loans.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You all are getting your pretty tidy whities all up in a bunch because I asked for a clarification of Mission's MW proposal to index MW to inflation. I asked him what would he do if there was deflation, and you'd think I asked some sort of taboo question. What TF do you think "index to inflation" means? Here we also see the larger problem with libertarian or contrarian ideas. When pressed for details how it would apply in certain, non-standard scenarios, they fall apart, or at least need more work.

As for "accepting it 'as is'", I note that I did indeed accept Mission's proposal as is, Can anyone indicate otherwise? I dare you to try. But I am not a Republican in Congress. And, no, opposition to increasing the MW isn't coming from Democrats. Otherwise, we'd have had an increase already.

What do you mean, 'Need more work"?

Geno: What would you do if deflation?

Mission: No change.

That's the way social security already works.

If the Democrats would accept the Republicans' proposal, then there would be an increase. If anyone on either side would agree to the terms of the opposite, then there would be an increase.

Quote: GenoDRPh

I advise you to keep current on current events, if you are going to speak knowledgably about them:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%20strikes%20down%20Biden%20student%2Dloan%20forgiveness%20program,-By%20Amy%20Howe&text=By%20a%20vote%20of%206,%24400%20billion%20in%20student%20loans.

I didn't attempt to, 'Speak on,' student loans at all, so why would I need to keep up on it? That's why I admitted to having not read it and said that I would have to read it to offer comment on whether or not the same Constitutional logic could also be applied to the non-enforcement of that particular part of tax code.

Speaking of being knowledgable, I'm not the one who implied that no moderate Republicans have introduced a minimum wage bill. This SCOTUS decision is part of a very minor side discussion that doesn't actually relate, in any way whatsoever, to my minimum wage point.