Congress denies minimum wage raise...

[Tigra00]

...And approves Congressional pay raise! :XD:

 

 

 

Lame. Srsly.

 

 

 

Since 1997, Congressional annual pay has gone from an already "too damn high" $135,000/year to $165,000/year. However, they have now denied to raise the minimum hourly pay for everyone in the entire United States from $5.15/hour to $7.15/hour, despite the raise in cost for pretty much every necessity people use daily.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I like democracy anymore. :uhh:

 

 

 

Write your Congress-Man/Woman. Ask them how their Benz is! :lol:

[TheSlayer]

Figures.. the cost of living is rising (especially here in Hawaii) and the minimum wage is staying the same. That sounds about how it should go... :shame:

 

 

 

Even if they raised it by $.50 or $.75, that would make a difference to a lot of low income families/high school and college students. It just ticks me off to know that our congressmen and women are supposed to be making decisions in our favor, not the other way around.

[Not]

Good thing, because the GOP tied the proposed minimum wage rate with a large cut in multi-million dollar estate taxes.

[TheSlayer]

Good thing, because the GOP tied the proposed minimum wage rate with a large cut in multi-million dollar estate taxes.

 

 

 

The estate taxes should be cut... :wall:

[deloriagod]

Where I live taxes are expected to go up and from what I've figured there's no possible way to live off of a min wage job.. Even working 2 min wage jobs for 40 hrs a week (each) every week of the year only gets you up to about $21,000 before takes are taken out... I think something needs to be done about congress raising their wages, while our own people are out there working their a**es to live in a rundown house, drive a crappy car, and have a very limited food budget..

[pianofrieak2]

Good thing, because the GOP tied the proposed minimum wage rate with a large cut in multi-million dollar estate taxes.

 

 

 

Yep, that's true. But what's wrong with Reaganomics?

[insane]

That's too bad =\ Move to Ontario! :P By this coming February, minimum wage will be $8.00/hr ($7.75 now)

[Tigra00]

This really doesn't effect me, because I don't ever plan on working a minimum wage job (I can get $10/hr starting elsewhere...) but seeing people on the news who do work them, it's pretty messed up that Congress would shoot them down, and with a straight face, pocket over $10,000 per month themselves. Pretty much everyone who works jobs like this is forced to keep working them into infinity, because they'll be homeless if they do not...Thus, they're stuck and will never get ahead.

 

 

 

So yea...Lame.

[Tigra00]

That's too bad =\ Move to Ontario! :P By this coming February, minimum wage will be $8.00/hr ($7.75 now)

 

 

 

Yea, but uhh...You pay 70% of that to the Government, right? :P

[Giordano]

America is turning less of a Republic and more into a Imperialists. Thinking of themselvs, more money, really hate it. #-o They're going to become the very thing they fought against in 1776-1781.

[Not]

Good thing, because the GOP tied the proposed minimum wage rate with a large cut in multi-million dollar estate taxes.

 

 

 

Yep, that's true. But what's wrong with Reaganomics?

 

 

 

Tax cut after tax cut, coupled with increased government spending has left us with a large National Debt. I guess we can just never pay back the debt, and borrow more to pay for the interest on the debt.

 

 

 

We don't need tax cuts for the rich, we need an increase in the minimum wage for the poor. The GOP tying them together is wrong, as is a lot of what congress does, but that is off topic.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Can't we just not raise minimum wage, and then not raise congressional salaries as well?

 

 

 

Jeez...what happened to congressmen serving as a duty to their country? The first congressmen had jobs outside of their service.

[deloriagod]

Jeez...what happened to congressmen serving as a duty to their country? The first congressmen had jobs outside of their service.

 

 

 

As time went on Congress relised that they could give themselves raises (which I think is completely wrong). So now they seem to figure 'screw the poor people, I'm rich!'

[pianofrieak2]

Good thing, because the GOP tied the proposed minimum wage rate with a large cut in multi-million dollar estate taxes.

 

 

 

Yep, that's true. But what's wrong with Reaganomics?

 

 

 

Tax cut after tax cut, coupled with increased government spending has left us with a large National Debt. I guess we can just never pay back the debt, and borrow more to pay for the interest on the debt.

 

 

 

We don't need tax cuts for the rich, we need an increase in the minimum wage for the poor. The GOP tying them together is wrong, as is a lot of what congress does, but that is off topic.

 

 

 

Tax cuts for the rich means that they have more money to spend which stimulates the economy resulting in more of the smaller taxes. I'm against taxing the rich out of existence because once they're gone, the economy starts dropping. Then we're really screwed since we've blown our main source of income while trying to increase income.

 

 

 

(like removing the board from under your feet)

 

 

 

I agree that we need an increase in the minimum wage. I think we should reward the hard workers, and many of those people are barely making it to survive. I'm also for lowering taxes on the rich because many (not all though) are hard workers. I'm just against those who don't work and don't try to get a job.

[insane]

That's too bad =\ Move to Ontario! :P By this coming February, minimum wage will be $8.00/hr ($7.75 now)

 

 

 

Yea, but uhh...You pay 70% of that to the Government, right? :P

 

 

 

Not me! Students get all taxes returned. And it's not 70 :P it depends on your pay bracket, I think the highest it gets is 50%, and that's for those $300k/yr people.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Since a good deal of this has turned to discussion about income tax, I thought I'd like everyone to know that I'm 100% against income tax. I think it's the second most hurtful thing to our economy (the first being withholding...of the income tax).

[gonpost]

"Tax cuts for the rich means that they have more money to spend which stimulates the economy resulting in more of the smaller taxes. "

 

 

 

Quoted from the guy above me.

 

 

 

While that's a nice idea in general, there is actually MORE money stagnated in the bank account of a rich person. If you distributed some of that money out amongst lower or middle class people, the money would exchange hands much more rapidly.

 

 

 

All I can say is that I hope the democrats win the next election.

[Guest GhostRanger]

"Tax cuts for the rich means that they have more money to spend which stimulates the economy resulting in more of the smaller taxes. "

 

 

 

Quoted from the guy above me.

 

 

 

While that's a nice idea in general, there is actually MORE money stagnated in the bank account of a rich person. If you distributed some of that money out amongst lower or middle class people, the money would exchange hands much more rapidly.

 

 

 

All I can say is that I hope the democrats win the next election.

 

 

 

So your economic theory is that since there is more money sitting in their bank account, we should take it and redistribute it among other people? Communism ftw!

 

 

 

Taking more money from (any class, rich or poor) and redistributing it discourages economic competition. Economic competition is the healthiest thing for our economy.

[indy500fan]

i am completely against congress continually giving themselves pay increases. i am also completly against the minimum wage going up. minimum wage increasing hurts the middle class, with both the upper and lower class gaining from it.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

 

Hmmmm...money

 

 

 

We are in the year 2006, not 1986. The income that you speak of now comes from the middle class instead of the upper class. Investment funds, the stock market, and various other systems of pooling money of shareholders together now account for over 80% of American businesses.

 

 

 

Take mutual funds as an example. The people involved are:

 

 

 

1. Trustees - Upper class (RECEIVES money)

 

2. Managers - Upper class (RECEIVES money)

 

3. Shareholders - Middle class (GIVES money)

 

 

 

Right now, we are taxing #3 instead of #1+2. Reaganomics is very outdated.

[pianofrieak2]

 

Hmmmm...money

 

 

 

We are in the year 2006, not 1986. The income that you speak of now comes from the middle class instead of the upper class. Investment funds, the stock market, and various other systems of pooling money of shareholders together now account for over 80% of American businesses.

 

 

 

Take mutual funds as an example. The people involved are:

 

 

 

1. Trustees - Upper class (RECEIVES money)

 

2. Managers - Upper class (RECEIVES money)

 

3. Shareholders - Middle class (GIVES money)

 

 

 

Right now, we are taxing #3 instead of #1+2. Reaganomics is very outdated.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but your picture was just funny. Actually, it was ridiculous. Shall we take an example?

 

 

 

You see, there's this really interesting thing about those in power: they want more power. Those with money want more money. How do you get more money? By investing it and then getting money back as a return. However, because banks give such low percentages back (2%), they often make new companies or invest in theirs to make it better.

 

 

 

But wait! That means they're putting it back into the economy while they make more money! :o

 

 

 

As a result, our economy is continually stimulated. Now don't get me wrong. I'm against taxing the middle class so much too. Actually, I'm very anti-taxes except to make our government function at the smallest degree possible. But saying that Reaganomics is outdated is a very contemporary but impractical view.

 

 

 

If you follow your philosophy, then the government gets more money, decides to overspend again, and then there is less money being able to tax because the rich are losing it all. Prety soon you have a very large poor class and a small middle class (what the rich USED to be). Then there's REALLY nothing to get income from, especially in a widespread welfare system.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

@piano:

 

 

 

You are talking about private companies again. I am talking about public companies and investment funds, which make up the majority of American businesses today. The main source of income for these things are middle-class shareholders. 20 years ago, your explanation would have made sense. Now, however, the upper class is almost completely on the receiving side instead of the giving side.

[Guest GhostRanger]

i am completely against congress continually giving themselves pay increases. i am also completly against the minimum wage going up. minimum wage increasing hurts the middle class, with both the upper and lower class gaining from it.

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

Minimum wage increases just causes layoffs. Wages increase regularly through competition, not through legislation.

 

 

 

Government legislation doesn't help the economy at all. The economy thrives best when it's free.

[weezcake]

27th amendment. Does no one know about it? :x

 

 

 

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

 

 

 

(Source)

 

 

 

So basically, if we vote 100% of the house and senate members out of office, they will never receive their raise.

 

 

 

People always say "Congress is filled with liars and crooks". But why exactly do people keep voting them back into office? Senators and House members are re-elected approximately 90% of the time -- US voters are such hypocrites! :P

[Tigra00]

I dunno, but I'm running for Congress. I wouldn't even know what to do with a $10,000+ paycheck every month. Honestly...Noone needs that much money.

 

 

 

I take that back...Doctors deserve it. They may suck [wagon] and just prescribe drugs, but they worked their [wagon] off in school and have to pay their debts off.