1 - 10 Next
I read through Ginsberg's Hobby Lobby dissent. She quoted a near one hundred year old saying that "the right to swing your arms ends at another man's nose", with which we can all agree, but saw only Hobby Lobby swinging it religious freedom arm grazing the nose of free contraceptives and chose not to see the federal government's nose-bashing arm swing into Hobby Lobby's contract with its employees.
Exactly. If his college grades were good, they would have been released a long time ago.
In response to:

The Devil in Global Warming Details

RichardsKY Wrote: 21 hours ago (8:26 AM)
Best comment yet. "The Climate will cease warming - By Order of The King!!"
This net nothing result should be self-evident if we would only stop a moment to seriously consider this question: If raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour creates a LITTLE prosperity, then why not create a LOT of prosperity by raising the minimum wage to $50 per hour? Some would scoff at this question as being absurdly unrealistic, but it is a completely legitimate question. We all intuitively understand that the $50 per hour idea would NOT create a lot of prosperity. So why would we believe the $10 per hour idea would create even a little prosperity? We might just as well believe that President Obama could decree “From this day forward, all trees must sprout leaves of cash - By Order of The King” ... and the trees would obey.
I hope it is clear from this illustration that raising the minimum wage cannot possibly be a net benefit to the economy or even to the targeted workers. No new value is created; no new products or services are provided; no improvement in productivity happens. The only thing changed is that we have shifted the chairs around on the deck. Money would be removed from the hands of some people and placed in the hands of others. A select few at the bottom would benefit, but that benefit will come at the expense of others – not the wealthy others, but the struggling-at-the-bottom others.
I just wish someone in the media would do a better job of illustrating this because, without an illustration, you get the response from the liberals that no jobs are lost because of minimum wage increases. Imagine an employer who owns a small business with 10 employees making minimum wage. In fact, to make the math easier, assume this employer is paying her employees $8 per hour, slightly above the federal minimum wage, which means she is paying a total of $80 per hour in wages. Now the feds come along and tell her she has to pay $10 per hour, which would increase her hourly wages to $100 per hour, an increase of $20. Multiply that by 2000 working hours in a year and her direct wage costs go up by $40,000 per year, not counting taxes and other costs. That $40,000 comes straight off of her bottom line. For many small businesses, that amount could be a very substantial portion of the owner’s bottom line and in some cases the entire bottom line. So, what does this employer do? Swallow the costs? Of course not. There are 2 choices: raise her prices or lay off some workers. What happens if she raises prices? The answer comes straight from Economics 101: if she raises prices, the demand for her products and services will go down. So, on top of the significant increase in her costs, her sales would also go down, which means her net profit would suffer an even greater adverse effect. This one-two punch could strain her ability to keep the business afloat, much less to grow the business, create new jobs, and hire more people in the future. But there’s more. The price increase does not affect her alone; it has also an impact to the customers she does manage to retain. They would have less money to spend on other things, so the tentacles of impact begin to spread across the broader economy. Her other option is to lay off workers. To keep her costs where they are, she would have to lay off 2 workers. Which two will she lay off? The best two? Of course not. She will lay off the two lowest performers – the two most needing the on-the-job training they are getting and the two most likely to struggle finding a replacement job.
In response to:

Yellen: Where No Man Has Gone Befor

RichardsKY Wrote: Jul 27, 2014 5:32 PM
Seems like more than half to me.
In response to:

No, Inverters Aren't 'Deserters'

RichardsKY Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 10:42 AM
Exactly. Just tax the individual owners when they take income out of the business. If they leave income in the business, whether it is a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship, they don't pay taxes on it. It will encourage reinvestment. Reinvestment means growth. Growth means jobs. Happy. A room without a roof.
In response to:

No, Inverters Aren't 'Deserters'

RichardsKY Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 10:39 AM
+ We could do away with the arcane rules of 501(c)3's and 4's etc. because there would be no point in being a tax-exempt corporation if all corporations are tax exempt.
In response to:

No, Inverters Aren't 'Deserters'

RichardsKY Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 9:00 AM
ZERO corporate taxes, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
1 - 10 Next