NM Governor Martinez vetoes minumum wage hike bill

Mar 31, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Deming Headlight

Gov. Susana Martinez on Friday vetoed a bill to increase the state's minimum wage by $1 an hour, to $8.50. Martinez, a Republican, blamed majority Democrats in the state Legislature for seeking too large an increase.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of128
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Apr 7, 2013
 
idgaf wrote:
Why are we making this such a complex concept to grasp? Person "A" makes 7.50/hr, person "A" can afford so much. Give person "A" a raise to 8.50/hr and that person will have more money. The problem comes in that the companies employing person "A" will have a higher operating cost. A higher operating cost translates into higher products/services cost to the consumer. The consumer, which includes person "A" are all of the sudden paying more per product/service. The operating cost increase is more than just the wage increase, it is the taxes the company must contribut to match the employee's and potential benefits. Not a good thing for a small or large business. On the surface, the perons is making more money, so they should live better. In reality, they can afford less because you've affected everyone's buying power and reduced it. Everyone from 8.50 to the millionaire. The govt is happy cause they are collecting more gross receipts taxes. For how long is the question? Increased operating costs and ultimately increased prices will drive demand for products/services down, negatively impacting the economy. Eventually, the gross receipts will equal the operating costs and you get companies going belly up. Att hat point, even the happy govt is worried cause who will keep paying for all these things we've recently afforded.
This is addition and subtraction at best. It does however require that you understand interdependancies. You cannot just look at the short-term benefit, more money in my pocket. You must see what the impact is to the global economy.
As for NM, businesses will never go to NM. NM's number of undeducated ranks too high. High paying jobs won't go there as there is not a talent pool to draw from. Furthermore, high paying job companies are looking for low paying places to stay in business. Don't go too far, why are businesses attracted to El Paso and not Las Cruces or NM in general? Business operating costs and govt incentives.
Don't look for more than minimum wage in NM. You have nothing to offer high tech companies. You have nothing to attract young people, no beach, no water, no real hiking, nothing but dust. Your schools are ranked almost last in the nation. Once again, nothing to offer. For las cruces, you have wsmr and nasa, both of which are dying by their own hand. No one wants to use wsmr cause it costs too much and is outdated. Nasa doesn't have a mission. What's left nmsu?
Minimumwage is looking attractive.
What do you mean no real hiking? "50 Hikes in NM"? La Luz? Where have you been? And you didn't mention skiing. Spaceport? Madrid? And Outside Magazine.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Willothewisp wrote:
"You do know that "government" is responsible for the regulation of commerce? Read the Constitution." JIJAC
Nice try. Government, like in feds. Or were you going to say you meant both the Constitution and the state's Constitution. You wanted me to read the Constitution. Obviously not the Commerce Clause in our Federal Constitution. You meant "ConstitutionS" I am sure. I missed that. Good dissembling.
Waiting for your cite that "government", as you put it, has the right to regulate all commerce. How many employees one has. Their wages. Benefits. Accounting principles. Profits. According to you there wouldn't be anything they couldn't "regulate" under that broad definition.
Right I said read the constitution. I didn't specify state or federal. Yes I was speaking in broad terms, but you fail to miss the point by trying to twist this into something else.

YOU stated that I believe government holds the key to the economy. Your words, not mine. I then replied that "government" regulates commerce which implies that government practically controls the economy. That's all there was to that statement. You then take a left turn and say that federal government controls interstate and state's control intrastate, and I did NOT say anything different. And now here you are arguing some crazy point that I did NOT bring up.

See because in your mind the term government means one thing just as you stated above "Government, like in feds."

That is you taking a very broad term and defining it into one system. Seems you forgot about the term "city government" maybe you should refresh yourself with the definition:

"The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit."

It's not just federal.

So then as I stated and as you affirmed government whether local, state, or national controls, regulates commerce. There is not need to specify which one controls what level of commerce because that was not the exact point of the issue, but of course you want to divert because you're trying to take away from the real point.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Willothewisp wrote:
Waiting for the cite to the New Mexico State Constitution on regulating commerce within the state. PRC? Indian tribes? I am sure you will do so since you spoke of Constitutions.
First of all I do other things so truly sad you sit and wait for my reply. LOL

However, why are you twisting this? I presume that you went to the NM site and searched for the word "commerce" then came back her to gloat. That is truly laughable.

The NM Constitution under Article 8 discusses taxation. Article 11 discusses corporations. Article 12 discusses education. Article 15 Agriculture. Article 16 Irrigation and Water Rights. Article 17 Mines and Mining.

All of these effect commerce. If you read the law maybe then you'd understand that.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/local/central/al...

Well, it seems that gross receipts taxes are up and now the government can increase jobs at the city. Good thinking. And what a coincidence. More jobs=More government.

Now that is intrastate commerce regulation at its best.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Apr 9, 2013
 
Willothewisp wrote:
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/l ocal/central/albuquerque-to-st art-adding-jobs
Well, it seems that gross receipts taxes are up and now the government can increase jobs at the city. Good thinking. And what a coincidence. More jobs=More government.
Now that is intrastate commerce regulation at its best.
Funny thing about all of this is this line right here:

"sales tax revenue has increased"

Exactly how did the government make people buy more product?

For the record consider this...when the film companies were filming in the Albuquerque area they spent more money on food and cast and crew may have shopped. Shows like "Breaking Bad" brought in tourists who obviously spent money on food, clothing, souvenirs, etc.

Granted if you are questioning how in the world does sales tax revenue mean the government can hire more people is foolish. Not you, I'm saying the government is basing it's future wages on a revenue that's not consistent. Sales tax could drop next year, and what then, no funds to pay all these new hires.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Not just buying more product...the other reason for the increase can be that the product or service costs more...and therefore the tax on it is higher.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Willothewisp wrote:
Not just buying more product...the other reason for the increase can be that the product or service costs more...and therefore the tax on it is higher.
You mean the tax collected is higher, right, because the tax itself is a flat rate.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the tax collected is higher, right, because the tax itself is a flat rate.
Are you really THAT stupid? A ten dollar item used to cost you $10.70. Same said item is now twelve dollars and costs you $12.84. One and the same item sold and it costs you $2.14 more. No increase in product sold. You do the math genius!

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just left of right wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really THAT stupid? A ten dollar item used to cost you $10.70. Same said item is now twelve dollars and costs you $12.84. One and the same item sold and it costs you $2.14 more. No increase in product sold. You do the math genius!
Obviously you need to pay attention.

If the state sales tax is 5.125% then it's 5.125% if something costs 10 dollars and something else costs 100 dollars the SALES TAX IS STILL 5.125%

That's why I said tax collected because the rate isn't higher it's the amount collected that's higher. You couldn't figure that out so you get mad and call me names that's funny, genius!

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you need to pay attention.
If the state sales tax is 5.125% then it's 5.125% if something costs 10 dollars and something else costs 100 dollars the SALES TAX IS STILL 5.125%
That's why I said tax collected because the rate isn't higher it's the amount collected that's higher. You couldn't figure that out so you get mad and call me names that's funny, genius!
Flyin' right on by! Do you pay attention to your arguments, collectively?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Just left of right wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really THAT stupid? A ten dollar item used to cost you $10.70. Same said item is now twelve dollars and costs you $12.84. One and the same item sold and it costs you $2.14 more. No increase in product sold. You do the math genius!
Nailed it. Sigh.

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just left of right wrote:
<quoted text>
Flyin' right on by! Do you pay attention to your arguments, collectively?
What actually did you prove? There was nothing wrong with what I said yet you're acting like there was. Just because you couldn't put it together doesn't mean I'm wrong. You misunderstood and because you misunderstood you get mad at me and cal me names. That's hilarious.

The person said the tax is higher, but it's not the tax itself, as in the tax rate that's higher, it's the tax that is paid "collectively" overall.

Can you understand that? Obviously when something has a higher price a person PAYS more in tax, but it's not the tax rate that's higher it's the TOTAL that the person pays. Can you differentiate between the two?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

<Sigh>
idgaf

Dracut, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean no real hiking? "50 Hikes in NM"? La Luz? Where have you been? And you didn't mention skiing. Spaceport? Madrid? And Outside Magazine.
Funny how you grab onto certain things and ignore the important items. NM hiking doesn't rank anywhere worth exploring. I'm right here, where have you been? NM skiing is nice in Taos. Spaceport? Really? That's expected to attract? Rich man's boondoggle sponsored by the govt?

There is a very limited talent pool of people here to support high paying jobs. This place is doomed to be the minimum wage leader for years to come. Look at our technical jobs. Work at the university. Work at wsmr (hardly technical). Work at NASa, more testers. No real technology to speak of.

This isn't Silicon Valley, not by a long stretch.

Increases in minimum wage don't make sense.
idgaf

Dracut, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Willothewisp wrote:
Not just buying more product...the other reason for the increase can be that the product or service costs more...and therefore the tax on it is higher.
You seem to continue on ur argument abotu more taxes being collected. When purchasing of products (volume) decreases, you've collected less tax.

You were selling widget #1 for 10 a pop. Tax was 10 percent for ease of math. U sell 1000 widgets a year. U pay 1000 per year in taxes.

After your minimum wage increase, widget #1 is 12 dollars a pop". Because of the increased price, ur sales drop to 500 widgets per year. U pay 600 dollars in taxes.

If all things were held constant, ud be right to say more taxes were collected. The percentage paid is the same.

Is this fuzzy logic what is required to "own your own business"?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

idgaf wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to continue on ur argument abotu more taxes being collected. When purchasing of products (volume) decreases, you've collected less tax.
You were selling widget #1 for 10 a pop. Tax was 10 percent for ease of math. U sell 1000 widgets a year. U pay 1000 per year in taxes.
After your minimum wage increase, widget #1 is 12 dollars a pop". Because of the increased price, ur sales drop to 500 widgets per year. U pay 600 dollars in taxes.
If all things were held constant, ud be right to say more taxes were collected. The percentage paid is the same.
Is this fuzzy logic what is required to "own your own business"?
JLOR's tip of the day: Try reading Willo's posts, going back. You might understand the argument!
idgaf

Dracut, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Just left of right wrote:
<quoted text>
JLOR's tip of the day: Try reading Willo's posts, going back. You might understand the argument!
I disagree with willow's logic. There are assumptions that don't make sense to make. Thanks for your tip, but unless you clarify what willow is arguing or translateit, willow's logic doesn't make sense.
idgaf

Dracut, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Apr 14, 2013
 
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course none of those below the poverty level get any assistance form the government - right? Like EBT cards and other subsidies...
Maybe you DumbasCRAPians who despise Reps should start your own businesses, or are you going to remain crybaby little whiney-butt consumers and live off subsidies from the sweat of others all your lives? Start a business and lets see if you change your tune!
Careful, as a business owner, you wouldn't want those whinny little consumers to not buy from you. Yoou might not be a business owner for long. You exist becausethere are consumers. Just a friendly reminder.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well at least the Feds are pleased with increased tax revenues. On the way to hit a record $2.71 Trillion this year. What is not to like.
idgaf

Dracut, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just left of right wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really THAT stupid? A ten dollar item used to cost you $10.70. Same said item is now twelve dollars and costs you $12.84. One and the same item sold and it costs you $2.14 more. No increase in product sold. You do the math genius!
Hold on a minute here. How 'bout being nice. You are both right to some extent. Regardless of the tax, the cost to the consumer is higher. Once again, my guess is that demand would drop unless it is a critical need item (gasoline).

Earlier you said to read willow's posts. I've gone back and forth with willow. I thiink we are in semi-violent agreement on some things.

My post was directed at "Minimum wage increases ...". I was not posting against Willow. I'm sure willow is a fine person. I'm sure we can all spin a story for our own benefit, and I'm spinning it for mine.

Willow, in 1 sentence, state your position, just so that everyone is clear on where you stand.

Here's mine ... I believe the minimum wage increase is wrong because it will adversely affect the overall economy and the buying power of Americans across all classes.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of128
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••