Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 12  Next

   

You missed my point.

   

When someone is insecure, any challenge to their pov is seen as an attack on their self, ie deemed an insult. So by you contradicting him, you've not only called him an asshole, but an insignificant little worm. Quit being so mean to people, will ya.

   

Try again.

   

That is your showing me YOU are an asshole?

Ok, so you are paying your employees minimum wage because they do not deserve to make a decent living? Because your business could exist without them, and you do expect loyalty from people you pay shit?
Then yes, you are one of the narcissistic assholes I am talking about. Or in the wrong business. You choose.

   

JJ may well be rude and impolitic but I'm not seeing a violation of the terms of use here.

   

Personal attack.

   

I'm not a huge fan of JJ so bear with me here as I am not defending him, I'm just saying I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Saying that someone has their head up their butt for not recognizing the proven implications of raising the minimum wage is something that's been said over and over on this forum in several of Andy's masturbatory minimum wage topics. It wasn't a personal attack then and it isn't a personal attack now.

Saying that you'd be a 'Big Fail' in business is hardly a personal attack. It may constitute an unfavorable assessment of your business acumen based upon your posts in this topic but it is not a personal attack.

Really, ringing the bell and calling in the troops (the Moderators) for things such as JJ posted here is a waste of time for the moderators and I'd be careful setting the bar so low for what constitutes a personal attack given that (and be honest here!) I don't think you'd be too happy if you were to be held to the same standard.

   

Enough with the name calling both ways and get back to the topic.

   

Uhhh maybe because in several of those cases the employee could end up bringing home LESS, depending on how much the increase is and the current payroll tax tables. I've seen people get raises of $1-$1.50/hr and end up with a smaller paycheque after deductions.

   

Not this bullshit again. Please tell me how the govt taking a percentage well below 50% of your pay can result in you taking home less pay when being paid more? Do the math for me, will you? You're claiming govt deductions can be more than 100% of the pay increase. Tell me how that works? Jesus Christ.

At anywhere near minimum wage, a pay increase will not even put you in a higher tax bracket. In Canada, that means you pay 15% fed tax on the increase, whatever your provincial tax is, (say 5%) plus EI and CPP deductions. The whole deductions won't be more than 25% of your increase, so you take home 75% of the increase. How do you get from there to a negative figure?

Does this mean you turn down pay increases because you don't want to wind up with less take home pay, or does this "spatial" math only apply to low income earners or anybody but yourself?

   

Urban myth. Though I do remember working a lot of overtime for little gain on the paycheck... like $50 worth of overtime only netted $10 or $12. Used to have the choice to bank it and take vacation, which I much preferred.
The minimum wage is only the starting wage. Let's just say a certain castrated 2-tier union here had to adjust their contract to compensate for the min. wage going above their starting wage here in BC. The scales had to be bumped a bit but nobody got $3 increases like the starters did.

   

If you're in a the top tax bracket, that $50 in pay could mean you only get about 50% of it so $25. You have to be in the highest bracket tho, or at least your increase does.

   

Bunch of bitchy assholes.

   

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 12  Next