More trickle-down economy.
Ok I have not heard any candidate address this. The main thing is not minimum wage but hours. They hire 5 part time workers instead of the 2 full time workers they need. All of the companies do it. It is disgusting. But many times they even get rewarded because the 5 workers they hired are not longer on unemployment so the get a kickback from the gov for hiring an unemployed person. I think there should be the opposite. There should be a tax insentive to hire full time workers (at least 40 hours per week) Instead our policies encourage part time workers. Then the gov subsidies that company's payroll by giving the workers welfare (not the workers fault--they have to live)
I heard him say it in an interview with Bill Orielly. Bill pushed the dollar amount out of him. But he did say $10/hr and that some places should be more but that should be the state that does that.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage/index.html
Yawn.
Same-old same-old recycled GOP stuff plus delusional claims of magically reversing 25+ years of "free trade" policies.
I love how right-wingers, when a cut in corporate tax rates is proposed, will suggest it will encourage business. But, when an increase in corporate tax rates is proposed, they say "Well, they don't actually pay taxes, they just pass them on to their customers."
How very convenient...;-D...
I just gave you the quote from Oreilly....from a CNN article and you are talking about something Sanders said????
Show me the quote where Trump says less than $7.25. I would love to see it.
Yep. Walmart, Kmart, Home Depot,....it goes on and on. They overhire then expect the workers to come in to work 2 hrs for the day....disgusting.
@njm -- Awww, it so CUTE when a right-winger substitutes ideology for logical reality-based thought (a process which I have named with this internet meme).
Let me walk you through the process very slowly. If...you...raise...tax...rates...on...rich...people, they...pay...more...in...taxes. Yes, there will be some avoidance but, in general, Bill Gates is not going to move himself and Microsoft to Namibia just because his tax rates went up a bit.
So, yes, if the government wants to raise more money for whatever reason, taxing the people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE IT makes logical sense. You may be politically opposed to the idea, but it is not logically contradictory.
In contrast, claiming that corporate taxes are both a corporate burden AND something that they merely pass on to customers is contradictory. If that contradiction is employed differentially in support of particular policies, it's F***ING HYPOCRISY. Once again, you can have ideological reasons for preferring higher or lower corporate tax rates (I personally support elimination of the corporate income tax in favor of capital gains and/or direct wealth taxes), but claiming lowering them spurs business while raising them will simply be passed on to customers is hypocritical.
You are welcome back in the reality-based community at any time.
OS - The ignorance of economics you show here is simply frightening.
Treating a corporation like Microsoft as if it is fat cat ripe for squeezing is stupid. Society owns the stock indirectly. By voting to squeeze Microsoft you are just voting to squeeze blue collar pension funds.
Elites will always avoid or evade taxation. Anything that does hit the target will just be passed on to us in higher prices.
The people "who actually have wealth" are the middle class not the rich. Individually they are poorer, though collectively they are what count. Every other group is insignificant by comparison. Taxation of the middle class destroys aspiration, and makes sure the plutocrats are the only game in town.
The only way to create a world where power is less centralised is to cut taxes and regulations for everyone so that small business can effectively compete with big business.
The people who run the world laugh at you behind your back.