No they won't. They only do it now because why work full time for $400 a week when you can get $300 a week doing nothing? Crank it up to $6-700 a week and their lives will demonstrably improve by working.
Yes. People don't understand that right now all that "free stuff" is going to corporate bigwigs. As employees we complain about rich hospital beurocrats taking the money we made for the hospital. The same thing happens everywhere else except the wages are SO low that now the taxpayers are stuck with the bill. Lots of free money going to people sitting at desks doing little, sticking us with the bills to support their poorly paid employees.
I don't argue that. They should have to work. The question is whether their finances are made compatible with life in America by paying them adequately up front vs supplementing their poverty wages with social programs.
Someone working full time that doesn't make enough to support their family shouldn't get welfare? If they don't get adequate wages up front then they have to get it in "welfare". What else should they do? I wish they'd get a second job, but they're not always available or possible.
It depends on whether its long term/short term gains. I assume the 28% is an aggregate of all investment taxes. Long term (held for >1 year) is at 15%, and short term investments are at your tax bracket (which is 39.6% for most wealthy individuals/day traders).
Calling it inflationary is simplistic and incorrect. Never has been true. If businesses were maximally paying employees and HAD to raise prices it would be, but they maximize profits, not wages. Right now corporate profits are at an all time high. Henry Ford was right about the effect on corporations and the economy when employees are payed well.
Another example of marriage penalty.
Absolutely true. He argues that he'll get things done because "things in Washington will be different when a million people" will be rallying in favor of his policies. He thinks congress will only feel pressure in FAVOR of his plans. He doesn't seem to realize that a million people will be rallying just as heartily for the other side.
I'm pretty sure he means people who can't work or those who don't get paid enough. I've never heard anyone propose that people should have the option of not working and contributing just because they don't want to.
We are talking about basic food, basic shelter, basic healthcare etc. I am not a leftist, but I prefer not to feel like a predator when I drive by some poor unemployed veteran begging at an intersection. I would rather pay slightly higher taxes, as long as these people (and everybody else) can get some basic necessary services for free.
I don't disagree, and I hope we can get better at people gaming the system. I just think we focus a lot on the lower end of people gaming the system. How many tens of thousands of scammers on welfare would we have to catch to equal the cost to taxpayers of one or two corporate scammers?
Jail is not a deterrent for crime. Also, we tend to jail too many people, like a primitive society, instead of (re)educating them better.
Add about 10% for state tax.
Then what'll they cost us?
Seriously?
He's the only decent human being running.
I'm sure his policies alone speak to this
