President Trump

[Belz...]

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

But you'd work for 20? I've worked for less than that. I also specified that it was AFTER tax, if you had bothered to read what I posted. Twice.

Let's see how your math works.

You work 40 hours a week at 20$ after tax. That means each week you take home 800 dollars, and each year 40,000. Under my scenario your hourly wage goes down to 17, your weekly earning to 680 and your annual one to 34,000.

You just lost 6000 dollars a year. What you are now telling me is that under that scenario you would work LESS, thereby making even less money, rather than working MORE to compensate or just adjusting your budget.

Do I have that right?

 

[quadraginta]

Nope, just get a blank page. I tried it with Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. Chrome tells me it's a 1 pixel by one pixel image, at least!

That's what I got.

Seems kinda wasteful to use up a whole screen for just one pixel.

Maybe just a little window would be enough?

 

[NoahFence]

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

??

 

[acbytesla]

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Note the huge push to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Walk into just about any fast food as well as other restaurants and you will find lots of adults working for half that.

 

[sunmaster14]

But you'd work for 20? I've worked for less than that. I also specified that it was AFTER tax, if you had bothered to read what I posted. Twice.

Let's see how your math works.

You work 40 hours a week at 20$ after tax. That means each week you take home 800 dollars, and each year 40,000. Under my scenario your hourly wage goes down to 17, your weekly earning to 680 and your annual one to 34,000.

You just lost 6000 dollars a year. What you are now telling me is that under that scenario you would work LESS, thereby making even less money, rather than working MORE to compensate or just adjusting your budget.

Do I have that right?

Yes, of course. Time is money, and money is time. My indifference point is about $100 per hour after-tax. It can go up or down, depending on how bored I am. There is a reason why people get paid more to work on the weekends or on holidays. They value those times of the week or year more than other times.

Also, it seems like your argument is a kind of extrapolation fallacy. You say that, well, a 1% change in the tax rate is de minimis, and nobody will change their behavior for such a small change. By induction, a 20% change also won't change behavior, as long as you do it in a series of 20 small steps. That's of course wrong. There won't be a discontinuous change. Most people won't cut back their hours because of a change from a 40% tax rate to a 41% rate, but some small percentage of people will. More people will do it for a change from 41% to 42% (including perhaps some of the people who already cut back hours when the rate was changed from 40% to 41%). Note also that as the tax rate is increased, a 1% tax rate change becomes more and more significant. For example, if you have a 40% tax rate, a change to 41% reduces your after-tax income from 60% of gross earnings to 59% of gross earnings, which is a 1/60 = 1.67% reduction. If you start with a 50% tax rate and change it to a 51% tax rate, your after-tax income decreases from 50% of gross earnings to 49% of gross earnings: a 2.0% reduction.

 

[sunmaster14]

And that's why we have lots of illegal immigrants. They will happily work for that amount.

No, we have lots of illegal immigrants because we don't enforce our laws, and we give out all kinds of perquisites to people who live here, regardless of immigration status. Like free schooling for their kids.

 

[acbytesla]

No, we have lots of illegal immigrants because we don't enforce our laws, and we give out all kinds of perquisites to people who live here, regardless of immigration status. Like free schooling for their kids.

We make the mistake of having the laws against the immigrants. If we wanted to slow illegal immigration we would criminalize employing them. Start putting business owners in jail for hiring illegals, then that pool of cheap labor would dry up fast. But businesses and their lackies in Congress want it both ways. They want cheap labor they can abuse and they want to whine about illegal immigration.

 

[NoahFence]

No, we have lots of illegal immigrants because we don't enforce our laws, and we give out all kinds of perquisites to people who live here, regardless of immigration status. Like free schooling for their kids.

Don't forget to put most of the blame on the people who hire them.

It's not as if immigrants are just sneaking into companies replacing employees.

 

[Bob001]

We make the mistake of having the laws against the immigrants. If we wanted to slow illegal immigration we would criminalize employing them. Start putting business owners in jail for hiring illegals, then that pool of cheap labor would dry up fast. But businesses and their lackies in Congress want it both ways. They want cheap labor they can abuse and they want to whine about illegal immigration.

You don't have put people in jail or even make it a crime. You just require all employers to use E-Verify, and impose an administrative fine of (up to) $10,000 for every violation. Most workplace rules are enforced pretty effectively -- and much more efficiently -- with fines than with criminal charges.
http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

 

[Random]

You don't have put people in jail or even make it a crime. You just require all employers to use E-Verify, and impose an administrative fine of (up to) $10,000 for every violation. Most workplace rules are enforced pretty effectively -- and much more efficiently -- with fines than with criminal charges.
http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

Won't change much. If a man is willing to break the law by hiring an illegal immigrant, he will be willing to break the law to not use e-verify. The basic dynamics of the situation would not change. Poor foreign workers would be willing to work under the table illegally for US employers because the wages would still be better than where they are from, and the employers would still hire them because they are cheaper than legal US workers.

$250,000 fine for any employer hiring an illegal immigrant, and a $100,000 bounty, amnesty, and a green card to any illegal immigrant who turns in their employer.

 

[acbytesla]

You don't have put people in jail or even make it a crime. You just require all employers to use E-Verify, and impose an administrative fine of (up to) $10,000 for every violation. Most workplace rules are enforced pretty effectively -- and much more efficiently -- with fines than with criminal charges.
http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

People like Sumaster have no problem throwing some poor immigrant desperately trying to improve his lot in life just like almlost all of our ancestors in jail, I wonder how he would feel if we threw white people in jail?

But the immigrants aren't the problem, we are. Making it criminal would eliminate the day labor as well. And in my book the CEO goes to jail not the people who might have hired them.

By the way, I think this is akso dead wrong to do unless we create a path way to citizenship for those already here. In other words we make it known for anyone here illegally to register to become cItizens. If they don't have a criminal record or they were minor offenses and they learn English and pass a citizensip test they are in. But the door gets bolted. From that moment on it is criminal...yes criminal to hire an illegal.

 

[Minoosh]

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Nice for you then. $17 an hour is worthless to you, but not everybody. It buys a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, a big jar of peanut butter and a dozen eggs, plus maybe some cookies as treats, ramen noodles or a good multivitamin. Not worth it to you, I get it, but significant for subsistence-level folks trying make ends meet. It may be it's just as well that they get the $17 that is so trivial to you. You avoid the insult of making $17 pre-tax; they get a genuine hope of advancing through the ranks.

Go Dreamers. If Congress would just pass this bill, they would instantly pick up support from young Latinos. But I fear that increasingly hateful rhetoric from constituents will keep Congress from acting. Maybe it is time to cut trade ties, impose stiff tariffs, to hunt down the illegal immigrants, inter them and send many back, even those with U.S. citizen children. Maybe there's an advantages to aggressively deport ALL Mexicans. We could pull personnel from fighting ISIS, the better to focus on fighting illegal immigration.

Maybe it's because I know so many households with mixed-status residents that I get caught up in sentimentally. Send the Mexicans to stop ISIS - that may be one strategy. The Armed Force say they can use the help.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sunmaster's privilege is showing.

 

[Bob001]

Won't change much. If a man is willing to break the law by hiring an illegal immigrant, he will be willing to break the law to not use e-verify. The basic dynamics of the situation would not change. Poor foreign workers would be willing to work under the table illegally for US employers because the wages would still be better than where they are from, and the employers would still hire them because they are cheaper than legal US workers.

$250,000 fine for any employer hiring an illegal immigrant, and a $100,000 bounty, amnesty, and a green card to any illegal immigrant who turns in their employer.

And a lot of white-collar crime is never prosecuted at all because it's hard to prove and expensive to pursue. Who went to jail after the financial collapse? At a minimum, you would have to prove that a specific hiring manager knew a specific worker was illegal -- not just suspected, not just should have known -- and violated the law deliberately. And you have to prove that whoever you are charging is personally responsible, not just part of a wayward bureaucracy. How many managers are prosecuted under the current laws in a given year? If it's more than zero, I'd be surprised. An administrative penalty is simple: Did your company use E-Verify when this person was hired? Our records show the answer is no. $10,000 please.

 

[Bob001]

Bernie Sanders on the deal to give Carrier cash and tax breaks to keep some jobs in the U.S.:

Trump has endangered the jobs of workers who were previously safe in the United States. Why? Because he has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives. Even corporations that weren’t thinking of offshoring jobs will most probably be reevaluating their stance this morning. And who would pay for the high cost for tax cuts that go to the richest businessmen in America? The working class of America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bernie Sanders on the deal to give Carrier cash and tax breaks to keep some jobs in the U.S.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/

Trump on the Carrier deal: "Carrier (US air conditioning company) is moving to Mexico. I would go to Carrier and say, "You're going to lay off 1,400 people. You're going to make air conditioners in Mexico, and you're trying to get them across our border with no tax." I'm going to tell them that we're going to tax you when those air conditioners come. So stay where you are or build in the United States because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
Source: 2016 CBS Republican primary debate in South Carolina , Feb 13, 2016

Apparently he meant that if Carrier doesn't lay people off, he'll cut their taxes.......

 

[Belz...]

Yes, of course.

Ok, so in conclusion if the law makes your hourly earnings lower, you will respond by making them lower still.

Sounds pretty irrational to me.

My indifference point is about $100 per hour after-tax.

That explains a lot.

 

[TofuFighter]

The 'Thank You' tour.
Trump really loves holding rallies. Rile up the adoring/chanting crowds up by insulting and criticizing the media, Democratic opponents, Republican opponents, globalism and in the same breath preaching unity.

 

[BDBoop]

Where were all his followers? The stadium was like half-empty.

 

[SezMe]

IMO there will be no buyers' remorse. If possible things that have had a negative impact will be spun as being positive or completely ignored by the news outlets that Trump supporters consume. If that's not possible and people actually notice that they no longer have healthcare then that will be blamed on Obama, the Democratic Party, immigrants, foreigners and so on. Trump supporters will be confident that their man is working super-hard in their interest and any failures are due to wide-scale conspiracies against him. Conspiracies hatched by "The Establishment".

Even if they have no job, no healthcare, lower welfare payments and so on, Trump supporters will still not have buyers' remorse because Trump "Made America Great Again"

Sadly, this is exactly what will happen.