Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Carson: Forget Economists, My Tax Plan Is 'Biblical'" video.

Ylze Tyr I did watch it and it doesn't explain the whole story. It is assuming that increase revenue can only come from increase tax rates. But if everyone paid, say 10% and their wealth grew then wealth all around will grow. We have had higher tax rates in the past and revenue in percent of GDP was the same.
2
Caius Filimon Ok, let me know. I am always willing to learn. And don't pay attention to Ylze Tyr, he is a myopic fool that doesn't want to listen at all. He is incapable of educating anyone. I tried to explain economics with him explaining to him something I learned in advanced statistics (a class MBA students had to take, I took for a math minor) but he refused to listen.
2
Ylze Tyr Evolution is just a theory. There are no benefits of raising the min. wage. I told you how the min. wage is a small part of a complex economy. Effects of the min. wage get lost in the statistical noise. Any effects have to be seen by removing the noise and all effects have been bad. But in a complex economy they get lost. My home state has a min. wage higher than the federal. We also have some of the lowest taxes in the nation. We just got a company that pays $26/hr. Low taxes played that role. You can raise the min. wage to $20/hr and it wouldn't matter to them because they already pay $26/hr. What is funny is that you say that raising the min. wage won't have a large negative impact but say that I made that claim when I didn't. But then claim that raising the min. wage saves the economy by making a large positive impact. I am the one being intelligent here saying the impact is small, it is just that I know it is all negative but lost in the noise. Trickle down is a political term, not an economic one. I said that wealth has trickled down in that I drive a better car then what rich people did in the 70s. I own a smart phone where only rich owned brick phones in the 90s. People are wealthier overall now than in the past.
2
Ylze Tyr "you're conflating issues. supply and demand has nothing to do with the minimum wage. " So all those economic textbooks are wrong? Also, as I said, a slight increase in the min. wage does have negative effects, it gets lost in the statistical noise. If you remove that noise, such as look at a target group, you see the negative effects as in higher teenage unemployment. I did provide evidence, you just didn't acknowledge them.
2
Ylze Tyr We have always had a progressive tax rate. We have had high tax rates but in terms of tax revenue as percent of GDP there hasn't been a change. What will help the cause is a simplified tax code (as in a flat tax) and lower taxes. As in right now the worst way to make income is a W2 because as in a 1099 for example anyone can make anything a write off. I have a storage unit where I store on item for what I do that I write off for my 1099. I can pay essentially zero taxes on that. How many people now that? And those that do are not you typical worker. You can't do that with a W2. The financial code is complex and really a mess. A flat tax makes it simple and better overall.
2
Caius Filimon I do see the harm in a flat tax. At the same time this country was designed on state rights where the states were to micromanage domestic issues such as domestic economic policies. Federal taxes was a tax on the states based on population. That is one method I support. I also support a flat tax at the federal level. One issue we have in this country is that the IRS lack workers to actually track who is paying taxes correctly especially when you consider all the cuts. That is why it is so easy for me, and my co-workers to lie on our taxes and pay almost zero on our 1099s. What you said here "Few governments do that effectively as they don't know how much to invest in whatever they have to. Besides, 'democracies' such as the US would never be able to make its economy to prosper long-term because the government is far too divided for that, and corporations have far too much say in politics, so much so that Ivy league unis no longer consider the US a democracy or republic." is key. With state rights you limit the corporate influence on government. That at the more local government is the easier it is to control and the easier the people can see if government actually works for them. A tax system that is not a flat tax at local level can be very beneficial. At the federal level it isn't because a country the size of the US shouldn't have such tax codes, it should either be a flat tax on the citizens or states. The other advantage of stronger local government is that people can see how their tax dollars are being spent and if they are actually being invested. One thing that bothers me about economics and when people talk about the economy is how they disregard one major factor, what money is. Money only derives it's value on the wealth it creates such as goods and services people desire. At the local level people can see if their tax dollars are being spent in a way they want such as the type of education they want or welfare. At the federal level you don't see that so you get frivolous spending such as the St. Louis Arch. While that helped out St. Louis it hurt the rest of the country because they didn't demand that. In all what grows the economy the most is intelligent investment to generate more wealth. That is complex thus should be left up to the states where at the federal level we need a flat tax of some sorts. Micromanaging the economy should be left up to the states, not the fed. This is my overall stance on the issue. I like listening to all sides of the argument and you did bring mature insight on the issue. The key thing that everyone has to remember is that this economy is complex and finding a way to limit that should be priority number 1.
2
Ylze Tyr There are zero positive effects of raising the min. wage. That is the point. My anecdotal evidence is important. I support a flat tax at the federal level because we lack IRS workers. I, along with my colleagues can lie on our taxes and pay essentially zero dollars. The IRS doesn't have the ability to see that we actually are telling the truth, all they do is see if we actually report income. That is how businesses are able to cut and pay a small percent. You complain about that happening but it is the lack of a flat tax that does that. In the past when we had higher rates like you cite there were cuts as well when we had millionaires paying nothing. Getting a W2 is the worse way to get income but that is the majority of the middle and lower class. They get next to nothing in tax breaks. The complex tax code hurts them. It helps me. I got a storage unit and just because I store an old hat for my uniform I will never wear again I can use that $60/month as a tax write off. The very tax code you support hurts the people you claim you want to help the most.
2
Ylze Tyr Considering how every single one of those words appear in the english dictionary I would say it is english. I know that I should have used more punctuations but how about instead of attacking the grammar you attack what was said. Typing something after working weeks getting around 4 to 5 hours a sleep a night will do that. If I were to say to you what I wrote you would have to rebuttal against because beyond grammar you have nothing. At the same time it doesn't surprise me that you can't understand that because you have shown a long time ago that you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
2
Ylze Tyr Being more awake I corrected it. Maybe it will be easier for you to understand, but considering you don't understand basic economics I doubt it. You never shown once how the min. wage lead to positive effects. It comes back that I am looking at how the min. wage has always been raised at a low rate and thus the negative effects are hidden in other variables that have a stronger effect on the economy. You on the other hand feel that the min. wage have a large role on the economy when it doesn't. Less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage. This shows your ignorance of basic economics. My anecdotal evidence goes beyond me. The federal tax code is written to hurt the middle and lower class because it isn't broad (as in a flat tax). The federal government isn't in the position to deal with micromanaging the economy considering how complex it is (even though you don't think so). In 1969 Joseph Barr complained that 155 individuals and families earning over $200,000 that year paid no taxes, that someone making $23 million. I know you won't believe me. What if funny about your whole "citation needed" thing is that you never provide any yourself.
2
Ylze Tyr Actually I never say anything, I type everything. As I said, if I were telling this to you then you will have nothing to rebuttal against because you won't be able to attack my grammar. And it is because of lack of sleep, this is finals week. I had to give and grade two finals and take finals myself. That and this is a youtube comment page, who cares about grammar? I have seen poor grammar by you as well (which you have corrected at times). When people get more money but don't produce more wealth that doesn't help the economy. I told you this. Money doesn't drive the economy, goods and services do. Money derives it's value from the goods and services it produces. If someone is making 20 widgets an hour and gets paid $10/hr, and then a law requires that they get paid $15/hr and they still only produce 20 widgets, now those widgets are going to cost 50% more (or the company will cut hours). That is the issue. That is as basic as it gets in economics. You have been extreme in your position as well. You said that states that have raised their min. wage has seen more jobs. That is being extreme since there are several factors that are involved in job growth. As I said in my state, low taxes are leading to more growth despite a high min. wage. The fact is that theory and evidence show all negative effects and zero positive. My anecdotal evidence holds. I work a job that has tens of thousands of workers that are independent contractors that have 1099s and they get the same tax breaks. They work a job not many can do thus the average worker gets hurt by having to stick to a W2. The federal tax code tries to micromanage. What works for one area might not work for another in terms of tax breaks. That is why it isn't broad. If you can't see that in a country of 300 million people then you are at a lost (but you also feel a $2 min. wage increase leads to job growth so go figure). Nobody paid those high rates in the 50s. Look at government revenue as percent of GDP. That reason for what Barr said was to get tax reform because no one was paying those high rates. They lowered the rates that were in the 50s to get more of the rich to pay more. Learn some tax history.
2
Caius Filimon The other guy is just being ignorant or a troll, I can never decide what. I try my best to open him up, he just keeps going farther on the left on the issue. We were talking about taxes and specifically the flat tax. I support a flat tax at the federal level because the federal government isn't there to micromanage the economy, that is up to the states. The US is too complex to have the federal government micromanage domestic issues. The founding fathers determine that in the past and it holds today. That is why I support a federal flat tax of some kind (either income or one on the states). I understand the advantages of other forms of taxes, I just want them done at the state level where they can be managed better. If you really want to know what he was talking about he complained about how the rich are not paying enough and then the conversation drifted from there. He diverged from the overall point so I don't blame you for refusing to read the thread.
2
***** The problem with a progressive tax is that you have certain people who do more work than others. For example, if you tax the top 10% 50% of their income then they are working time and a half now. The top 10% pay 70% of taxes, that means the top 10% does 70% of societies work. This is why there is income inequality.
1
There is nothing wrong with a flat tax. A progressive tax means that those who pay a higher percent are doing a larger portion of the work in society. There is an unequal amount of working being done thus you have a certain percent of society doing 100% of the work for society. That is why we have income inequality. We have a financial system where people get money for doing nothing off of the work of those who do actual work. We been having a progressive tax for decades, if it really worked we wouldn't see a growing income inequality gab, but we do.
1
Ylze Tyr Since the installment of the federal income tax it has always been higher on the rich. And if being a CEO is so easy then why don't you do it? If being a business owner is so easy why don't you do it? You know, having to fill in when someone calls in sick or not show up, or taking the financial risk, or dealing with high taxes so many can go to free loaders like yourself.
1
Ylze Tyr You have no idea what it is like to run a business do you? Taking the financial risk, working weekends and early morning when you can't find someone to do it (or can't afford to). Being on call 24/7. If it is so easy to run a business put your money where your mouth is. Start one. Show how easy it is.
1
Lizzy Bennet What is wrong with a flat tax?
1
Ylze Tyr In basic economics, even in high school you learn about supply and demand curves. In supply and demand curves you learn that if you raise the price of something demand goes down. With the min. wage that is demand for work hours thus employment is lost. There is a nice youtube video by Khan Academy on it. So that is basic economic. I was taught economics in elementary school at the very basic level. One thing that was taught was that if something costs too much people won't buy it (again, very basic). That holds for the min. wage. It is funny how the basics go against what you said. And I do know what the word theory means. I am addressing to you for the first time because I personally don't care. I do study physical chemistry for a living. If you can explain to me the 2D Ising model and phase transition I would be impressed, but chances are you won't understand either one let alone combining the two.
1
Ylze Tyr Actually I was saying the benefits of a flat tax which another person pointed out as well. I have also showed support of state rights and have mentioned how a progressive tax has benefits at the local level. I said that in other comments. You failed to read them and acknowledge them. You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually get into detail on something when you just look at one thing and make a general determination on it. Let us use the example of the min. wage. You are "Y" and I am "W" in the typical conversation between you and me. W: There isn't one good reason to even have a min. wage. It kills jobs and raise prices Y: You moron, look at the states that raised the min. wage, they have seen job growth (cites some questionable source) W: There are a lot of factors that are involved in overall employment. A small increase in the min. wage gets lost in the complex economy we have. It gets lost in what is called the statistical noise. You learn in advance stats, a grad. level course for MBA students, on how to remove variables to see what happens. When you do you see an increase in youth unemployment when the min. wage goes up. Prices go up as well. That older worker earning $15/hr is not going to lose their job, it is the worker with no prior experience or skill. Y: I doubt you ever been to college. You are some child who knows nothing. Look at all the job growth. Citation needed. W: (gives citations some from universities). As I said, you are looking at overall job growth. My state has a min. wage higher than the federal. Due to low taxes and regulations we just got a businesses that open up that pays $26/hr starting. If the min. wage was $30/hr in my state they wouldn't come, but at $8.50/hr that means nothing for that employer, what matters is lower taxes and regulation. Again, overall unemployment is effected by several variables in a complex economy. When you remove those variables you see what economics predicts, less employment for unskilled workers. Y: Says something immature. W: Ignores Y because W has to work and has better things to do than deal with a fool. That is typically how our discussions go. I break something down and get into detail where you don't and resort to name calling and being the grammar nazi. Even with this flat tax discussion you disregard me right away and then cite some questionable source with numbers that don't mean anything unless put in some sort of perspective. So the highest tax rate dropped a lot? Big deal. As I said, look at government revenue as percent of GDP, you get a different number. Or what were the cuts then during those high rates? You have to dig deeper. This is why I am in the position I am in with grad. school and you aren't. I actually think, you just spew talking points that you heard on some left wing talking show. You are no different then Alex Jones fans spewing hatred towards the government.
1
Ylze Tyr And this is your problem. Yes I know that taxes were cut during those times. I don't deny that. But I, unlike you actually look deeper in it. Look at tax revenue as percent of GDP, it has always been around 17% to 18% even with high and low taxes. The reason for the tax reform law in 1969 is because taxes were lowered but the tax code as simplified to reduce tax breaks because at those high rates of 90% or 70% people were not paying them. Your are like those people in the past that saw a bunch of worms after it rained and figured it rained worms. As in one thing happens and another thing happen so they much be strongly related. I am the person who actually dig deeper in what is going on. Our tax rates are lower now than in the past for the rich and we have more income then in the past. Those are both facts, doesn't mean they are related or mean anything unless placed into context. And that is why you are always wrong, or at best mistaken on these debates. You fail to think.
1
Ylze Tyr I actually didn't destroy my own argument but instead strengthen my position I support. Ben Carson is talking about a federal flat tax. I support state rights and at the federal level you have to be broad, thus you need a flat tax of some sort either as a flat income tax or a tax on the states. You just jumped to conclusion and say asinine things like you always do. It isn't so much that your source is questionable but more of what do those numbers mean? You can't throw around numbers without putting them in context. Let us give a couple of examples, I told you about the min. wage and overall jobs. My state has a min. wage higher than the federal but we have job growth due to lower taxes and regulations. That new business coming into my home city pays $26/hr starting. That $8.50/hr min. wage means nothing to them, taxes and regulations do. Another example moving away from economics is that in MLB in 1996 there were more home runs hit then in 1995 and 1994. At the same time those two years were shorten seasons. It wasn't that players were hitting more homeruns, there were just less games. You cite tax rates, so what? What about tax breaks? Right now the top 10% pay 70% of federal taxes. The top 1% pay 24%. You mention higher corporate taxes, in the 50s global trade was nothing compared to now. You complain about rich people moving their money off shores. The rich has the ability to do that due to resources. Higher tax rates get them do that. You never put any of that into context. You just say "look at these tax rates" and that is it. I, being the more intelligent person says "ok, and......" looking for you to bring up a point but you don't and just avoid the issue. Also, on higher tax rates, if I were to ask if you want 30% of a pie or 15% of another pie you should ask what is the size of each pie. Because if that 2nd pie is 4 times bigger than the first then you would be wise to pick the 15%. You see, you have put things into context. If you don't then you are no better than those individuals who lobbied to say smoking was good, or that worms fell from the sky.
1
Caius Filimon Who are you referring to?
1
Ylze Tyr It does strengthen my position because at the federal level a flat tax is the only way to go. With a country as large and diverse us the US the federal government is not in the position to micromanage tax policies, that is up to the states. At the state level if a progressive tax is put in place and it works then fine, if it doesn't and people with money leave then fine, at least they will be in the country still. You mentioned earlier how people who are rich are moving money off shores. That is what happens when you have an unjust federal tax system. You either have people who are intelligent like me who have jobs that get a 1099 and thus pay little to no taxes, or they move their money off shores because they have the resources to do so. In both cases the rich, who you despise, take advantage of the system. That is why a flat federal income tax is the best which was my original argument. Your original argument was that it won't work and you double down on that those with money move it off shores, well there is a reason why, the federal tax system is not equal and motivates those with money to move it to pay lower taxes. Now on to my numbers vs yours. You mentioned now tax rates were lowered. That is true but it doesn't account for breaks the receive or percent they actually paid. My numbers are put into perspective that the rich do pay a majority of the taxes, even you new questionable source (more on that later) says that. So my numbers had context, your numbers had nothing. Yes percent drop but what else? The tax code is very complex, just looking at percentages doesn't matter unless you relate them to something. I related my numbers to something you didn't. Now onto your source. It is from whitehouse.gov. Right now the Obama adminstration is in control. Imagine what it will say if Romney was in charged? I imagine you would stay far away from that source. Right now that source has a liberal bias. It also shows that the rich pay most of the taxes and it mentioned the Buffet Rule when Warren Buffet took advantage of the tax breaks making him a hypocrite. In all your source is not at all reliable. Unless you source it when a republican is in office you doing an extreme form of cherry picking.
1
Ylze Tyr I did strengthen my argument because we were talking about federal taxes at the beginning. Now if you want to talk about state and local taxes we can but this was about taxes at the federal level so I support a flat tax. If you would have read the rest of the comment I went on to talk about state rights and how states set up their tax policies and how it can be different, but at the federal level I support a flat tax because it is the best way to go. You can try as hard as you can to say that I contradicted myself but just because you refuse to read or acknowledge what I wrote doesn't mean that I contradicted myself, I strengthen my position. Go back and read the comment again. Your source did give context, but it is from a bias source. If I were to quote something from Peter Schiff you would rip on it as much as you can. Or if I were to quote something from Whitehouse.gov if Romney was president you would deny it any way possible and the quote something form MSNBC or some other left leaning source (or give out numbers without context again). "Reality has a liberal bias", really? You are going to bring that up? Like how? We can look at the US. Which places have the least crime and lower forms of income inequality? Rural areas that typically vote republican. We can play that route. Why is it that spending in K-12 education has increased but the quality hasn't? I can really go on to ruin your whole "reality has a liberal bias" idea. My state has low taxes and we are growing in jobs. As I said we just had a company come in that is starting out at $26/hr, and that is not including the indirect effects. Seem like the tax cuts are working there unlike in CA where they have no money at all. Your source was written by a liberal who is doing his job as a politician to get votes for Obama. He is making more than you with less work (assuming you work). You bring up Fox News as well. I don't watch Fox News. News sources are not news, they are entertainment. Plus that poll is questionable as well. Unlike you I actually question things and look into them instead of taking things off of face value.
1
Ylze Tyr You are starting to fall apart. When you have nothing intelligent to say you just mock me. I told you my stance and what I say supports it. And when I do that you try the best you can to break me down but in the process you look more foolish. You mention a liberal bias source. I never doubted if what they said were true or not, what I am saying is that it doesn't tell the whole story. Smoking cigarettes causes weight loss, I don't think people would be saying smoking is healthy though. Me being a moderate I despise liberals more than conservatives for 2 reasons. One, they are extremely broad in what they say and support. The refuse to go into details about about anything because the second they do their argument falls apart. My other issue is that they want to force their way of living down others throats (more so than conservatives). You want a progressive tax. I told you that might not work in some areas. So set it up in your state and set a flat tax at the federal level. Don't ruin other people's lives just because of your pure ignorance of ego. Have you ever thought for yourself for once or do you just go with what other liberals say? I use to be extremely liberal, I also use to be conservative. I have since then grown up and thought for myself. Looking at other sources isn't bad. Your source you provided brought some good insight, but at the same time it is bias and can't be taken off of face value. This is why, as I keep saying, I actually know what I am talking about, I actually think. You just continue to act like a fool. You would be the type of person who wouldn't watch a Peter Schiff or Milton Friedman video because you wrote them off already. I will watch them with the mindset that they are bias (especially Schiff) but still watch them. That is the difference between you and me, I actually think, you just follow blindly.
1
Ylze Tyr Well considering how I am the one that admits there are advantages to a progressive tax but they just have to be done at the state level, and you totally wrote off a flat tax from the get go, I would say I am moderate. I bring a different side to the issue on these videos, that is all. Nothing negative about it. It stirs up conversation. I enjoy hearing about the other side, just that when it comes from a radical like yourself it is hard to take seriously.
1
Ylze Tyr Actually for the lower percentiles most taxes are local, that is not including sales tax and property tax and what not. And most spending besides the military is from the local government. Education for example is mainly from local spending along with roads and law enforcement and other forms of infrastructure. You can have a low federal flat tax if you cut federal spending to what it can constitutionally cover. Remove federal programs like the department of ed. or Social Security or Medicare and so one and we will be fine. Most of domestic programs are label as "other" (such as the EPA) by the federal government, that is how unimportant they are at that level. Those programs should be ran at the state level. A tax on the states is based on population and it is up to the states to determine how to raise that money. Once again I get into detail about this issue. You just look at something in black and white. We can cut back on frivolous spending (and spending at the local level is managed better than at the federal). State rights is the solution to the problem. We never had a department of ed. until 1980, notice since then our K-12 education hasn't been improving despite more spending by it? I also never dodge any of your question. If you think I did then ask them again and I will be more then happy to get into detail in answering them again.
1
Ylze Tyr I am not a conservative and I don't agree with everything they say. But a couple things, the left want to abolish the constitution in general so how are you any better? Also, look at your source again? It is clearly a pure liberal cite. I might as well be citing the Heritage Foundation at this point. Look at the poll, 316 "republicans" were polled. Really? I can find 316 "republicans" named Steve that don't support replacing the constitution with the bible. Really if you consider that a strong source then you are in trouble for life. And one more thing, using threat of incarceration to get others to accept other people's lifestyle isn't the best strategy. What is a state doesn't want high taxes? Or the min. wage? Or support socialized healthcare? You just want to arrest them. Or if a business doesn't want to be a part of someone they disagree with you just want to oppress them. You need to get your priorities straight here.
1
Ylze Tyr You actually cited PoliticusUSA a site advertised as "Real Liberal Politics", not politico. You don't even know what sited you referenced. Also I know how polls work, in a country of over 300 million people there are far more than 316 registered republicans. 316 is a very small sample size. Let us look at a couple of issues. Say a business hires someone but pays them less than the min. wage? You would support arresting that business owner. Or that cake shop owner who refused to have their cake be a part of a gay wedding, People on the left supported using threat of incarceration to get her to pay a $100,000 fine. In order to put in place what you support you have to use threat of incarceration from the government.
1
Ylze Tyr There are zero benefits to raising the min. wage. That is a hard up fact. I looked at the issue and there are not any benefits that come from or any reason to raise it. Those programs as in SS, Medicare, education etc. can be ran by the states and ran better. I support programs like those they just need to be ran by the states. You see when I say we need to get rid of the federal department of ed. you assume I want to get rid of all education, I never said that. I want it to be ran by the states like it was for 200 years before Carter started the federal department of ed.
1
Ylze Tyr We lack federal revenue as is. Our current system is not working. Removing those programs will lead to better investments and thus more wealth and more revenue. Also I support cutting the military budget (federal military spending is constitutional by the way, SS and Medicare are not) and I support pulling out a lot of our troops. When we do the rest of the world will see how important we are to maintaining peace in the world because other countries are not pushing for that like we are. We spend a lot of money in the military trying to prevent violence. At the federal level it is supposed to be simplified. The states are supposed to deal with domestic policies because they are complex. We can't implement a one size fits all policy at the federal level because it is too difficult to manage. The founding fathers saw this in the past and it holds true now. Consider this, when Obamacare was passed the democrats had a hard time getting 60 senate democrats to agree on one healthcare bill. It is because their idea of government healthcare is different. Thus the states should establish it.
1
Caius Filimon A reason why lobbying is a problem in the senate is because there are no limitations on the federal government. If the federal government have power then it can't be bought. That is an idea of having a more local government (state rights) because at the local level you have a checks and balance system that limits corruption. We have lack of decisiveness in politics because at the federal level the US is so complex that creating a one size fits all policy simply doesn't. What works in one state doesn't work in another. The founding fathers saw this in their time and it holds even more today. Take healthcare reform. It took the democrats a long time to get all of them on the same page on healthcare reform. They couldn't get 60 of them to agree on one bill. When it was written some were against it because while they were for healthcare reform they were not for that type. With that at the state level policies get passed easier and are managed better.
1
Ylze Tyr The PPP is not the most accurate polling source and has a democrat bias in the questions they ask. Asking questions directly to bait conservatives, or have people say they are conservatives vote in a certain way to skew the results (not hard when only 316 people are questioned) is not a accurate poll. The poll doesn't prove anything, as I said I can get 316 republican voters that are atheist. "those consequences don't necessarily have to be jail time, that wouldn't really be a fitting punishment." What is a "fitting punishment"? A fine? Ok, so you fine the business and they refuse to pay. Eventually you have to use force. That is the point, the end result is the threat of violence to get people to do something. If that business doesn't pay a fine then the law is pointless unless you end up using government force. I did argue on the actual position. If someone breaks the law and the government fines them and person refuses to pay a the fine then the government has to take more drastic measures, usually violence. If not then people will continue to break laws and not pay the fines making the law pointless.
1
Ylze Tyr I can easily find an economist that agrees there are zero benefits in the min. wage. One worked at my university that specialized in researching it. States do set their own education standards. As of right now only 43 states use CCSS and only around 27 states use NGSS (those are Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards). State do the vast majority of the funding for education and set their own standards and curriculum. TX has one of the better education systems in the US, they are doing fine. But you did show you lack of knowledge when it comes to who sets standards in education. The states do it.
1
Ylze Tyr How did I contradict myself? I support state rights. Yes the states set education standards (something you showed you didn't know), but the department of ed. has a corrupt system. It creates standards and tells states that in order to get money they have to abide by those standards. It is taking money and holding it ransom from the states. I didn't contradict myself at all, I support removing the corrupt system.
1
Caius Filimon There is a role for the federal government, it is deal with foreign affairs, deal with commerce between states, and enforce the constitution to the states. The responsibilities are broad and don't give the federal government potential power over the people. Everyone has the same rights going from state to states. Laws against corruption are not necessary in that the federal government is limited in power and thus buying it will be pointless. There really isn't one single good reason to even have a minimum wage of some sort. A business doesn't pay more because they simply cant' afford it. Taxing a business more for paying less is more of a burden on them.
1