What? He's saying it reduces jobs. That's not the economic argument. The argument is that it doesn't benefit anyone while rippling inflation through the economy. Those with raises stagnated and those without got poorer. Net net, only losers or neutrals in the deal. The lost jobs silliness is the red herring to mask the idiocy of the idea. That's the red herring. The middle and lower classes are facing the reality that international competition for brainless work is stiff. There are billions of people willing to do things cheaply. That's economics. Blaming wealthy or high earners is borne of ignorance.
I'm certain you don't know [penis] about economics or finance. You wouldn't argue that this article merits homework in being refuted. The min wage and stimulus are both awful red herrings. Read more.
No, I am not arguing that at all. AT ALL. You didn't say that, did you? You said: Then Neither of those two statements are true, and neither are the same as saying the article is about Republicans being responsible for/seemingly encouraging and championing wage inequality. Those are 3 different statements.
Even my lesbian ultra liberal economics professor told me savings are better for the economy than consumption
Their study didn't substantiate anything g about wage inequality, except that it's a rallying point. Your trying g to somehow make massive tax inequality feel better. Don't bother. It's garbage.
Read the freaking thing and my point. Shifting to some idiotic assertion that isn't real argument and knocking it down is crap. They did that. You bought it because you apparently don't know the argument or can't tell your ass from your ear. I laid it out for you. If you'll avoid election year mantras and reason, you'll understand why it's a bullshiz point.
It is a big part of how this country worked through the Cold War. It is not some new-fangled commie plot, it would be a return to normalcy. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5?op=1
How am I acting like he produced cold fusion? You seem to only be able to attack the messengers and offer unsubstantiated claims. "Minimum wage is a red herring." From what? A red herring from what? Income inequality? Okay, savings are good for the economy. For who? Is the economy shitty or not? If it is, then savings aren't helping. If it isn't, why do you act like the economy is being irreversibly destroyed by the current adminstration? You GTFO.
So, you showed a historical marginal rate graph. Awesome stuff. Any idea federal tax receipts as % of GDP? Any idea of the wealth of Americans compared to the days of enormous marginal rates? Who had a mutual fund in the 60s? A brokerage acct?
Unsubstantiated. There is no freaking doubt I'm right. They are guessing and hoping. You're acting like I haven't been soecifically educated on this topic. You're acting like they made an actual point. They are making a point that is superfluous to the debate. Who cares if it is neutral to total jobs. It's negative to the vast majority of Americans and neutral, at best, to those getting the wage hikes.
Read better. You've been duped by really shoddy presentation. Min wage is neutral or negative to everyone, whether job count improves or not. Americans are wealthier now, at every level of society, than ever, save 5-7 years ago when house values were skewed way high. Your historical tax bracket meant [penis]. It was a back to the good ole days argument. Surely yiu understand the point regarding stimulus. The other crap was just wishful thinking.
Do you have any idea the savings levels today? The only irreversible is this stupid ass free healthcare program. The rest sucks and is awful policy exacerbating an awful and deteriorating situation.
So they are setting policy to concentrate wealth to the rich, but it's not taking money from the middle class?
