Minimum wage increase revisited...

And you are answering a question with a question!

 

So you are say those wanting to work should not be allowed?

BTW, I am sure you have seen the move to NY ads. They are asking companies to move to NY and they will pay no taxes for 10 years. (I assume they mean NY taxes.) Why would they offer such a "subsidy"? Might it be because the employees actually pay more in taxes than they lose in subsidies?

 

Just trying to walk you back to the topic.
Can you answer why we give subsidies to large corporations?

 

As soon as you answer any of the questions I've asked you. You can never seem to respond to anyone that asks a perfectly valid question but you expect them to answer all of yours. If this is the only way you can argue, don't ever get into a real debate. So here it is one more time for your convenience...

 

It's really a simple question...one even you should be able to answer...

Why are subsidies given to large companies (a subject you brought up by the way)?

 

Typical. Can't debate so you try to bully answers out of people that owe you none.

 

Water carriers for the wealthy aside, the only thing that will truly make a dent in poverty is education. If we actually invested in educating the poorest populations, the cycle of poverty would be broken in one generation. We can't educate people that are dying of hunger and cold. It only makes sense in the long run to pour money into education thus eliminating the need for a safety net almost entirely. If you really hate government handouts then you should be in favor of educating poor populations. Instead of attacking people for merely existing, it is far better public policy to address the problem with a solution that makes sense and actually solves the problem. Opportunity is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. Instead, the Federal government and every state is decreasing educational opportunities and increasing poverty. Pretty soon education will only be available to the scant few percent at the very top of the economic ladder. Our education system will be completely dismantled by that point and the task made even harder. You kind of get the idea that this is the goal of the current policy makers. Nobody ever said that Capitalism wasn't shortsighted.

 

I guess if you keep giving the freebies you'll create a pretty loyal & dependent voting bloc, huh?

 

Obviously I made a mistake there and I apologize most sincerely. It can't be at all pleasant for anyone to be confused with Davy. Even on this board there is a level of decency below which we must not sink and my attributing your comments to Davy was inexcusably insulting to you and clearly went below that line. I hope you can find it in you to forgive me.

That being said, my comments stand. You have yet to come up with the law to which you refer. And the links I posted would seem to demonstrate that how profitability is viewed, how profits are used, how they can be best maintained over the long term, and who exactly corporate management is supposed to serve are by no means clearcut and have generated quite a bit of debate, and action in the courts over the years.

 

Again, I say there is no one specific law, but you might find eBay v. Newmark interesting. See http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2...ons-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/

 

This is all very interesting. There are two types of laws, one passed by the legislators, and the other a result of interpretations from the bench. Both hold equal weight. I agree with Takiji and do find it interesting. There are also two separate court systems, criminal and civic. My guess is that the cases issued were out of civil court which does not require an ordinance to be be broken in order to bring it to court. How else can OJ Simpson be declared Not Guilty and and later Guilty of the same crime. Getting back to the main thread, the first case mentioned, Ford vs Dodge, does shed light on how far you can go. Keep in mind that Ford was paying his employees triple the going rate for semi-skilled workers at the time. This was not a contention in the law suit, but the use of profits for long term goals and philanthropic use were. If you could only use this precedence to snip the gold para-shoots out from under incompetent CEOs and managers, then you might have something.