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
- New solution to border crisis: Send U.S. officials to Honduras to give kids refugee status? Allahpundit Jul 24, 2014
- Boehner accuses White House of sabotaging Veterans Affairs bill Noah Rothman Jul 24, 2014
- NFL suspends Ray Rice for two games in domestic-assault case Ed Morrissey Jul 24, 2014
- Great news from Hillary: The Russian reset worked Allahpundit Jul 24, 2014
- Thursday TEMS: Duane Patterson, Daniel Garza, Mike McFadden Ed Morrissey Jul 24, 2014
- FEC Chairman sounds alarm to Hot Air: There’s a ‘move afoot to constrict press freedoms’ Noah Rothman Jul 24, 2014