The level of spin liberals come up with is truly amazing. The latest one they are calling the "performance pay loophole." Prior to a law passed in 1993 (Section 162(m)), firms were free to compensate their executives as they chose. Congress, with its infinite wisdom of bowing to populists, sought to tax more of this executive income by restricting the tax deductibility of that compensation that the firm was always able to do beforehand.
The latest propaganda being disseminated by the liberal army is the concept that the government and taxpayers are subsidizing American corporations that pay their employees low wages.
The minimum wage is often misunderstood by the public at large and not a lot is written about the benefits of low minimum wages mainly because it is not politically correct tell someone that they really aren't worth a higher wage or should be forced to live on less.
In normal everyday life, to be a decision maker of a group, you usually have to satisfy three requirements: You must be known to be a valid decision maker to the other participants, you must have a vested interest and understand the outcomes of your decision, and you must have contributed to the group. Household? Check. Corporation? Check. Only in the world of government are all three requirements removed from the process.
There's been this meme floating around the internet for a year or two now. Anytime a conservative or libertarian mentions welfare or the 47%, the standard liberal retort is to cite that red "welfare" states receive more federal money than the IRS collects in taxes from that state. Liberal economist Paul Krugman would have you believe that Social Security and Medicare is what constitutes mooching. Their narrative is that Republicans are bigger moochers than Democrats.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”
What if I told you a political belief held widely by both Democrats and Republicans (and likely you) for about 15 years was completely false? Would you continue reading or would you stop right when you got to the claim? When you get to the claim, are you going to label me an extremist and move on, or attempt to read and perhaps challenge the arguments?
We all know what social security is, so I will be brief with the introduction to highlight the key points. Essentially, it is a required government program that taxes earnings 7.65% (including Medicare) below a cap (currently $113,700) and 1.45% of all earnings above that. They also require your employer to contribute the same amount.
There is a common misconception in the media, politics and the general public. It is the concept of wage discrimination towards women in the workforce. It is a politically manufactured false strife purely to be a partisan ploy to stir up controversy for a problem that doesn't actually exist as it is implied. The implication is that
There are a lot of arguments for why tactical rifles, incorrectly labeled "assault weapons" in the media, should be banned. Most of the arguments against "assault weapons" are the same arguments used against firearms of any kind.
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.