Serious question: How on earth could anyone oppose a policy that would effectively give low-skilled workers (workers who barely make enough money to feed themselves, let alone a family), higher wages? After all, we live in difficult economic times, and it doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable that individuals working in low-skilled jobs should be entitled to a minimum, universally agreed upon standard of living. And indeed, as you might expect, this isn’t by any means an unpopular idea: According to a recent Gallup poll, almost all the Democrats -- and precisely half the Republicans -- surveyed would vote “for” a proposal...
fine, if the government wants to define what the private market must pay a worker, then decide appropriately because that will be the new maximum that a federal worker is allowed to be paid. To ensure a proper and fair balance all income will be taxed at the same rate up to the level equal with 2000 hrs times the hourly rate and that rate will be 1/2 the rate of all income above that threshhold. Say the wage is 20/hr, 1 dollar up to 40000, which all minimum wage earners and federal employees would make, being taxed at 15%, any income over 40k gets taxed at 30%. I'm sure the feds would soon see the error of their ways. All federal giveaway programs go by the wayside also, States that wish to continue any such programs or tax programs are on
- Is the wind lobby’s most precious subsidy finally losing steam in Congress? Erika Johnsen 29 minutes ago
- “Russia has not invaded Ukraine,” and other great moments in Russian propaganda Erika Johnsen 1 hour ago
- Video: Trump to buy the Buffalo Bills? Ed Morrissey 1 hour ago
- Rand Paul: Let’s get this straight — I’m not for containing Iran Allahpundit 2 hours ago
- Biofuels producers: No really, this is the year biofuels are going to take off, for serious Erika Johnsen 3 hours ago
- Why not Mike Pence in 2016? Allahpundit 3 hours ago