T.i.p.s is the abrieviated version of .. to insure proper service ? GET IT ?
T.i.p.s works to incorage staff to falsify thier income which means other tax payers pick up the tab.
T.i.p.s. works to encorage employers to pay sub standard wages.
T.i.p.s. works to have the customer pay the service provider regardless of the quality of service.
T.i.p.s is just another scam to keep people working for less .
I understand what you are saying about the two options, however, they are not completely right. First of all, a study was done within the last 6 months that calculated the increase it would take to raise the minimum wage and keep the profits where they are. I think it was 29 cents for a big mac and 11 cents for pizza.
Also, raising the minimum wage would have added benefits. More people with higher wages, albeit, still in the low income range, would mean more money spent, meaning more goods to be replaced, which would translate into the need for more workers. Yes, raising the minimum wage would actually add jobs to the economy vs losing jobs.
Large chain restaurants are publicly owned companies, (investors). They must make more than a minimum profit because the stockholders need a return on their investment. Private owned restaurants don't have to make the extra profit for shareholders, whereas some chain restaurants may fold, more private owner restaurants will take there place. In other words, someone will fill the void to sell hamburgers and pizzas, etc., to take the place of the large chain restaurants. The same thing would apply to retail and others stores. Instead of large stores, you would end up with a bunch of small stores, but, the demand will still be filled. Small, independently, private owned business, usually a sole owner, can invest the franchise fee paid by the chains as profit or to offset higher wages for it's employees.
A walmart can only raise prices so far; anything beyond that and they allow the sole owned businesses to compete in price.
But, Grove, you are partly right, however it is simpler than you are willing to admit.
On the SNAP topic here, it sounds like we are talking about whose pocket is paying the extra funds.
I see two options here. I'm fine with either, but this is what I see:
1) Raise minimum wage to a living wage level.
With this, you take these workers off the SNAP rolls, saving the government money. You instead force WalMart and the fast food corporations to pay the extra cash from their pocket.
The question here is how much these corporations will take out of their profits and how much they will pass along to the consumers. With their competition all forced to pay higher wages, they will likely pass a large portion of the increase along to the customers. The customers of fast food restaurants and WalMart are mostly lower middle class or even poor, so you're paying a good bit of this living wage increase out of the pockets of the poor who now have to pay a higher price for food and goods.
2) Leave it as it is, and the government is forced to subsidize the wages for those workers as they do today.
The government is funded largely by the taxes of the wealthy and middle class. It's not completely straightforward, but especially at a store like WalMart, they understand their price elasticities so well that you can bet they will maximize the amount of the increase paid by customers, not their profits.
Point being, it's not just a simple solution. I'm not against living wage increases, but before jumping at a policy because it sounds good, it's best to understand what will happen and who will be impacted. I bet WalMart will be able to produce an 18% margin even with a living wage increase, or at least close to it. With a larger revenue base due to increased prices, they could at least produce more gross profit, even if the margin decreases.
Can you please tell me which parking lots you are talking about? I would guess that you, just like me, avoid the parking lots in the impoverished hood, so just which parking lot are you talking about. Do you also wait to see who is exactly parking in those handicaps spaces? Since I have a handicap decal, permanent, I can tell who parks there illegally and the stores I go to are in the same areas as the ones you shop at.
While you are in those parking lots and in the stores, ask the managers, who are mostly white and making a good salary, what they think about those people with Snap Cards. On your way home, stop at your local bank and ask the bank manager about the good money they receive for handling Snap benefits. Yes, you can also ask Walmart, who had 18 billion in profits, with 18% of that coming from Snap recipients what they think.
Julius Jones, you are really silly! You show yourself to be dumber by your every post. Keep it up, we need to have someone that is more stupid than us to read.
Bruce and Cats,
Number of fast food workers receiving federal and state aid : 942,0000
Minimum amount spent annually on aid to those workers and their families : $7Billion
Value to corporate America : priceless.
(source for the first two anyway): some yahoos at the Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California.
Wow, sounds like Memphis had a rough night and maybe just a little cabin fever.
Brunetto and OTP let's remember that without the communist black Gay dude Bayard Rustin the civil rights movement would have been sorely lacking and without the communist gay Black dude Bayard Rustin the gay rights movement would have been closeted quite a while longer.
So maybe we can get a group hug here brought to you by communists in the human rights movement.
Do I detect encouragement for illegal immigration from the present Leader of the Roman Catholic Church? What if China decides to use its growing financial clout to export 5 million Chinese cadres to Detroit or Rome, for example?
"I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis." — Pope Francis
I must agree with JuliusJones, children and cripples associated with non working SNAP users are best left to starve or steal. If they had any sense of decency at all and a true love of Fatherland, they would opt for the former. Those opting for the latter, maybe with a little redirection we have use for them after all.
OTP, don't presume to inform me of what the general public thinks of gay people, especially seeing as how you're a proud citizen of Memphis, one of the most homophobic cities in the USA. I know better than you what the general public thinks of gay people. It's my life. For you, it's just a fragment of nonsense to post on a website.
"More Limbaugher Cheese, Julius. Only one in six SNAP households is a nonworking family without kids or an elderly or disabled family member."
Love how you qualified your retort, Bruce, ... "without kids or an elderly or disabled family member".
I think we've all gone to the grocery store, passed all the newer cars taking the handicap spots and seen those illegal parkers using snap cards to purchase candy, chips, soft drinks, and expensive cuts of meat on our dimes.
Of course, that's a topic for another day, ... like whenever law enforcement decides to enforce those parking laws. I'm sure we'll have a lot of indignant hollering about targeting certain folks, which will generate an article and oodles of comments.
You forgot one point: Trading Zbo will help us tank, which should be the goal for the rest of the season.
And the fan favorite argument is silliness.
Posted by oldtimeplayer
"If the feds stopped or cut deductions for charity, you will see a drastic drop in those contributing to charity and the amounts. So, it is hard to judge weather the giving is from the heart or if it is motivated by taxes."
OTP, no one "makes money" because of their charitable contributions, they just pay less taxes. Also, it's not a 1 for 1 trade off, either. The benefit is basically their tax rate % times the deduction, up to the limit of their allowed deduction. In Romney's case it was no doubt all cash deductions.
If someone in a 28% tax bracket deducts $100K for charitable contributions, they reduce their taxes by $28K. Not a good deal for making money, huh???
Now, I seem to recall reading something about how chintzy Obama's and Bidens charitable deductions were. Do you recall that?
@Hang em high kitty,
I'd rather let ten people serve life sentences than execute ONE who was wrongly convicted. Science keeps exonerating people on death row, but shucks, accidents happen.
Equating our society or humanity or justice with our legal system is a joke.
And, when the state executes the wrong person, which it has and will continue to do, how will you get "JUSTICE" and "PUNISHMENT" against the state for murder?
Well, then, we should be religious neutral and not give tax deductions for any contributions to a church or its affiliates.
Btw, it is that same general public that fights for the rights of gays to be recognized in marriage and to not be discriminated against.
What about the bottomless pit of defense spending and corporation welfare?
I read and hear an awful lot of talk about the stuck-in-the-mud faction that decries mgmt. moves that dismantle the Griz That Were. (Which is done. It is a done deal, and never to be what it once was.)
What I don't hear about is the faction that is willing to back and adore the new team management no matter what they do.
Either extreme is ridiculous.
How did he almost cost us the Clippers series by himself? Also, what makes you think Joeger is a better coach then Hollins? He's been coach for 20 games, what specifically has he done to make you have that opinion?
OTP, how fortunate that you are a fountain of solutions! Please be sure to convey "the only thing that will make a difference" to the "feds" so that they, too, can benefit from your expertise. Don't hide that light under a bushel !!!!!!
Who is Romney? Sounds familiar, like someone who mattered yesterday. I doubt he's someone I would waste my time discussing. Whoever he was, I can't fault him for giving his money to promote his religion rather than to the "general public". The general public is a bottomless pit of need. Likewise my money wouldn't go to the "general public" but to my religion, which is fortunately superior to Romney's religion and needs less of a financial boost for prevailing over time.
You are right. The only thing that will make a difference is if the feds changed the deductions for charitable contributions.
Mitt Romney's charitable contributions are real, however, they are misleading. Mitt
Romney gave most of his money to Mormon causes and the Mormon church. There was not much giving to the general public.
If the feds stopped or cut deductions for charity, you will see a drastic drop in those contributing to charity and the amounts. So, it is hard to judge weather the giving is from the heart or if it is motivated by taxes.
I get so tired of all the comments people make about how "in the past, people were charitable and just, but now everything's gone to hell." The only difference between the present and the past that I can tell is that now poor conservatives -- aka Tea Party Patriots -- have been effectively recruited and brainwashed into championing privileges of the very wealthy, which they can never hope to enjoy. In that respect, the conservative think tanks and the radio demagogues have changed the game from what it was in past generations. I hope there are enough traditional Republicans to do something about this and that they haven't waited too long to recognize the monster they've created. And I hope, but don't expect, that once they've put the Tea Party in its place, they don't pull it out again whenever needed.
Otherwise, there's nothing significantly different between today and long ago yesterday.
GroveReb84 and Thecatsmeow
You two have lambasted this president by saying that he also kow tows to corporations and big banks. You are wrong. In fiscal matters, Obama tends to be a moderate. He realizes that corporations are good for the economy. He has always supported lowering the corporate tax rate, for giving tax breaks to certain corporations. However, unlike the gop, he is not for giving tax incentives and breaks for the sake of these corporations making a few people richer. He will give tax incentives to businesses that create jobs here in America. He is against tax incentives that allow companies to move jobs overseas. He is against giving oil companies tax subsidies for finding oil, hell, that is what those companies are in business for.
He is opposed to supply side economics because he knows from empirical data gathered over the last 50 years that it does not work. Hell, even the republicans know it doesn't work.
I ran across this article published by PhillySuburbs.com, titled, Supply Side Economics Does Not Work. I starting read, thinking that it was a partisan view of the subject. But the writer mentioned something that I didn't know. Congress has it's own study group, completely non-partisan, that it can ask for studies on certain things. These reports are not made public, however a citizen can request a copy from their congressman, it is up to them to fulfill this request.
The Congressional Reports Service did a study, requesting the effectiveness of supply side economics. The report, CRS, dated 9,14,2012, titled Taxes and the Economy. Well, Grove and thecats, you can read that congressional report on the PhillySuburb.Com website, Economics does not work, 10/25/2012 in its entirety, along with figures and graphs, etc , and conclusions.
Grove, you should like this study; it is non-partisan, shows all of the relevant figures and graphs. Please google: Supply side Economics does not work, dated, 10/25/2012.
By Louis Goggans
download this issue
click here to see more »