Comments
Sleuthiestofsleuths t1_j85kg11 wrote
Facts
[deleted] t1_j85u8w7 wrote
[deleted]
beerspeaks t1_j84vw9e wrote
Nice to see we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
glennjersey t1_j84zlet wrote
Dont worry, our esteemed state legislature will manage to raise taxes and further restrict gun rights in the state before the session is over, but do nothing about minimum wage or the housing crisis.
Though I think I saw a GOP proposal to drop the sales tax a bit at least, so there's that.
[deleted] t1_j856o1h wrote
[removed]
glennjersey t1_j85ojf0 wrote
We wouldn't have to be of the legislature could go a single session without trying to attack gun rights.
I've already read all the proposed legislation in that area so far, but haven't seen anything to attack the housing crisis. Is it wrong of me to make note of that to the rest of the taxpayers and voters ITT so they k ow what they're wasting time on instead?
whatifionlydo1 t1_j857i1g wrote
Go move to NH, you hate taxes so much.
lestermagnum t1_j85hz0e wrote
The Democratic Governor proposed lowing the sales tax.
cowperthwaite OP t1_j85j8bh wrote
There was a bit of a kerfuffle over the proposal, after the numbers that households are supposed to save were found to be flubbed.
Story requires a subscription.
>Gov. Dan McKee sparked the debate by proposing to cut the 7% sales tax to 6.85%, which would reduce the tax bite on a $1,000 item from the current $70 down to $68.50, and on a $100 item from the current $7 to $6.85.
Kerfuffle:
>Citing the average of $77 in annual savings that McKee's budget team originally projected for each state household were his proposal to pass, de la Cruz said a household would have to purchase $51,500 in taxable items to see a savings of that magnitude.
>Asked for comment on the minority leader's comments, a spokesman for the Department of Administration acknowledged an error in the numbers originally provided to the media.
>He said the proposed reduction in the sales tax rate from 7% to 6.85% would, on an annual basis, result in approximately $39 in savings, on average per household and business. He said the original calculation neglected to take into account the fact that roughly half the svaings goes to households, and the other half to businesses.
deathsythe t1_j86lkpm wrote
This comment seems insincere, or why else would you deliberately be leaving out the fact that de la Cruz's response bill/proposal was to lower it even further to 5%. Seems like pertinent information, no?
lestermagnum t1_j86qrg5 wrote
Because I had no idea that de la Cruz had a proposal. A minority leader’s position isn’t as news worthy as the Governor’s, and I hadn’t heard about it.
deathsythe t1_j88yr4s wrote
You're not a journalist covering this, nor was this comment directed at you.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8afy0w wrote
The detail you’re angry about being omitted is literally in the story. This is like getting mad at a waiter who won’t pre chew your food for you.
BigApple2247 t1_j86rgs0 wrote
I wonder how much is spent a year on average, $1.50 saved per $1K spent feels like changing pretty much nothing for the vast majority of people.
More of a move to say you changed something while really not changing it
glennjersey t1_j85o5sx wrote
To add to what OP cited below, de la Cruz's proposal was to lower it to 5% fwiw.
whatsaphoto t1_j86e7t6 wrote
It's insane to me that it just can't be that focus has shifted to another thing but the original thing still very much has validity and importance in the state. It's not like it looses importance just because other things are happening at the same time.
cowperthwaite OP t1_j86hga6 wrote
Raptakis has been trying to get automatic increases based on inflation since 2007, but told me he almost never gets support, colleagues told him, we'll consider it when we get to $15/hour.
>For Sen. Leonidas Raptakis, the fight over the minimum wage has been a pet issue since 2007. One of the two related bills he filed would tie minimum wage increases every year to the Providence-area rate of inflation as published in the federal Consumer Price Index.
kayakhomeless t1_j86pets wrote
Por que no los dos?
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_j8748wo wrote
Minimum wage increase would be counter productive in an in environment where where we are trying to quell runaway inflation
ExploitedAmerican t1_j8p67dd wrote
Let’s let people starve and keep housing unaffordable. you’ve bought the dumbshit propaganda advocating against living wages paid for and supported by Wall Street grifters who make $2000-5000/ hour and who’s disregard of human life and insistence on undignified starvation wages coupled with relentless cost cutting are primarily responsible for the catastrophe in East Palestine Ohio
If we cared about inflation more then stock buybacks and dividends nixon never should have killed the gold standard but he was definitely one of the top 5 crooks of the century and since the gold standard was abolished our currency has devalued by over 6000% (the value of gold is the truest inflation metric since it has always been considered an inflation proof store of wealth)
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_j8p6qpq wrote
Ok buddy people get butt hurt on Reddit. To quell our inflationary situation of over 6% for years. Things need to happen. People must consume less, rates had to rise, unemployment had to rise. Economists agree raising wages would be counterproductive to combating inflation.
ExploitedAmerican t1_j8p96oo wrote
Economists are just a bunch of douche bags paid to defend the exploitation at all costs model of capitalism endorsed by the rich. you’re saying let’s keep minimum wage at a starvation level that makes most jobs not worth working but let’s keep stock buybacks going and executives making $2-5k an hour so they can buy another yacht and spend more on a weekend vacation than you or I will earn in 3 lifetimes of full time employment. Meanwhile the workers responsible for their profits can only afford to live with 3+ roommates in a squalid apartment. And millennial homeownership and reproduction statistics are lower than any other generational group in the last century
Seems obvious where the main problem lies there in and it’s definitely not paying people enough to actually have an incentive to perform labor. But instead of doing what’s right corporations now want to roll back child labor laws to illegally pay kids $6 an hour to work garbage retail jobs.
Corporations have been fueling inflation due to greed for decades and prices have risen through the roof but wages have not. It’s beyond hypocritical and downright delusionally biased against the working class to say that the cost of commodities goods and services must rise but labor is the one exception to that rule. If that doesn’t tell you it’s a rigged game you’re either oblivious or a shill for corporatist Wall Street military and prison industry profiteers.
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_j8p9tou wrote
When you start off your statement by vilifying and entire discipline it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.
Pain was going to come in two forms we had to pick.
Runaway inflation due to crap fed monetary policies for decades and multiple presidents OR stagnation of wages and rising of rates.
What we needed to avoid was stagflation as seen in the Carter presidency.
Pain was going to occur and runaway inflation hurts the poor the most.
ExploitedAmerican t1_j8pb2b2 wrote
What we needed to avoid was legalizing stock buybacks, ending the gold standard, Shipping jobs to third world countries killing labor and unions so share holders can steal the surplus value produced by laborers instead of those companies taking care of those responsible for their luxurious silver spoon in mouth lives by providing them with real incentives to work hard. These days the only way to ensure you won’t have a retirement or own a home is to work as a blue or white collar laborer.
Even Einstein said that economics is not a real science and can not solve the issues associated with the modern world and capitalism. It is a school of thought that defends exploitation and explains its mathematical mechanisms. When you take away the exploitation apologist angle of economics you’re left with basic arithmetic nothing more.
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_j8p9y9d wrote
Oh and CPI was around 2% for years which is favorable to our nation and growth.
ExploitedAmerican t1_j8pcbvz wrote
Inflation statistics regurgitated by economics are a lie to protect the system from violent uprising. In 1970 it took 22 hours to earn an ounce of gold at minimum wage. Gold has retained its value for 2500 years. If you do the math in ancient Babylon it cost 1ounce of gold by modern weight standards to buy 350 loaves of bread. A sheckle bought 100-150 pounds of grain depending on the type of grain so if you do the math it equals 350 loaves to a Troy ounce of gold and today a quality loaf of bread costs $5-6 so I’ve ounce still buys 350 loaves. But it now takes between 125-250 hours to earn equal value. Minimum wage would need to be $84 to provide equal buying power as it did 51 years ago. Money was intentionally devalued to destroy the progress made by pro labor advocacy in the 50’s&60’s but the wages of the rich were adjusted for this meanwhile those doing the work have had the value of wealth produced by their labor looted so that a small select groups can live in extreme wealth. If you made $900,000 a day every day since Columbus landed in the Caribbean you wouldn’t be as wealthy as Elon musk who built his wealth on his fathers hand outs stolen wages from apartheid emerald miners
HawkingDoingWheelies t1_j85azpj wrote
Don't worry, before they do anything about the housing crisis public interest in that will "lose steam" as well, we're the smallest state and still can't get anything done to make it better