"National Guard were requested seven times, and the Pentagon refused seven times."

National Guard units report to state governors. The Washington D.C. national Guard reports to the president. Depending on whom in the Pentagon you are referring to, National Guard members would have to be on title 10 orders for the regular military to deploy them. And that's beside the Posse Comitatus concerns.

"This is not A Good Trend."

How so?

Reunification was never imagined to be collaborative; it was a plan that was developed when parity between NorK and SouK was closer, and the NorKs though they might be able to overrun and subjugate the south. This development shows to me that the NorKs realize they are overmatched, and the LoC's they are destroying represent more of a threat from the south than an opportunity for themselves.

#3

How many tankers do you think it took to make this happen?

"And that last line is ridiculous. I can barely think of anyone whose labor value is worth less than a living wage. Maybe special needs individuals?"

Well, you'd need to understand economics to figure this out. You might need to go to college, but I'll try to explain this in a way you can understand.

You have a lawn. You have a driveway. If you don't, you are likely close to someone who does. Lawns require mowing, weeding, landscaping, etc. In winter, driveways require snow removal. The person who owns the lawn and driveways is almost always 100% qualified to do landscaping and clear snow. Most would prefer to pay someone to do it. But if the cost of doing so is sufficiently high that the monetary cost is higher than the time cost, then the people who would have been employed to do these tasks are unemployable.

For $n, I'd pay someone to mow my lawn. If the government mandates that I pay someone >$n for that service, then I will do it myself. And the potential employee gets nothing.

Minimum wage is a two-way street. It tells employers that if they want to employ someone, they must pay $n. It also tells employees that, if their labor is not worth $n, they are not legally employable. Market-wise, your opinions on labor value are irrelevant.

"And how many people working there are 16? There are a TON of people working there who are adults and use it as their only source of income. We're talking 30, 40, 50 year olds."

OK. And the labor markets recognize age as being indicative of labor value? Walk me though that.

They totally can pay a living wage and not raise prices. Literally prices all over the country and in other countries prove it. See #4.

Hmm. How much time have you spent in Switzerland? I'm guessing none. Feel free to correct me.

"Is it that evil "inflation" or is it that the restaurants are finally paying their workers living wages?"

Companies can't (not won't) pay living wages if the customer is not willing to bear the cost.

And honestly, why does a 16-year-old high school kid need a living wage? Activists demanding that they do will ensure that high school kids are no longer able to get jobs.

To put it differently, mandating that employers pay a living wage ensures that those whose labor value is below that amount are no longer legally employable.

So...I'm still not totally clear on how this would generate higher revenues (outside of the increase in the tax rate) than it would be if the capital gains were taxes at the time of sale? In fact it seems like it might even be advantageous for the person who is paying the taxes if you could pay current-year taxes at future-year value.

I didn't see that part.

Would taxpayers get to deduct unrealized capital losses?