darkseer

This was shock and awe tactics at the time. Professional soldiers were trained to accept the casualties dealt out at the start of the battle and keep advancing until the enemy broke and then slaughter them as they attempted to flee. Everyone who makes fun of George Washington for how he conducted his troops conveniently forgets that his army consisted of untrained volunteers who consistently broke when confronted with the British war machine.

Because someone spent decades building a lot of weapons that are very good at taking out larger weapons.

I did pull up the link and it only showed the profits from a single corporation that owns Burger King and Popeyes. Brinker who owns Chili's and Maggianos has a net profit of 2.48%, Denny's has a net profit of 8.25%, Dine Brands which owns Applebee's and IHOP has a net profit of 9.03%. And these are established restaurants that have been around a long time.

Ok. Looks like you're using gross profit while I'm using net profit. And I'm not including franchises like McDonalds or Wendys because most of the profits are from franchise fees and the raw products that their franchisees have to buy at a markup. They also don't have employees that rely on tips and their portions tend to be smaller than a meal at, say, a Denny's which does use employees that rely on tips.

Yet, they shouldn't raise their menu prices because they should have enough money to cover additional wages? With a 5% profit margin? By your reckoning every restaurant in America should be out of business. Yet, you also want our restaurants to follow the European model which serve smaller portions at higher prices. I've said this before and I will say it again. The ills of the US corporations can be laid at the feet of the consumer. CEOs get extremely large salaries and bonuses because they're the scapegoat. Consumers were satisfied with one person taking the blame for a systemic problem that would most likely continue after the poor bastard was fired, but hey at least the company heard you. Small wages for employees? Consumers won't shop here unless we offer what they want for the cheapest price. Even when certain restaurants offered more transparency for why it costs more consumers complain about having to pay for such things as employee healthcare.

Fifty seven million over 22 years is pretty tame. Especially considering that the National Restaurant Association has forty thousand members. It would have only taken about seventy dollars a year per member to get to that total.

You make it sound like they're pocketing millions a week, when the typical profit margins for restaurants are less than 5% and max out at 10%.

It always amazes me how business owners are portrayed as greedy monsters instead of the pants pissing cowards they most likely are. If you need to raise the prices of your products to give your employees good wages, do it. And customers need to understand that better paid employees means higher prices.

Realistically? The number of people in the top tax bracket. There are less than a thousand reported in the US. Even if you give them an average of half a billion dollar incomes each it only adds up to around 5 billion dollars total. Not much. But, if you take the working population of the US and an average income of 30,000 dollars you get a total of 9 trillion dollars to work with. No matter how you work it there will always be more water in a shallow lake than a deep puddle.

And other ways to increase taxes on them sound equally attractive until you take a 80% hit on your 401k when you retire or your property taxes spike.

I'm not saying that the progressive income tax is illegal. I'm stating an increase on one bracket will also mean an increase on all brackets. And such things as raising property taxes or the capital gains tax will hurt others than those you want to pay.

No. I'm saying that increasing the taxes for a single bracket can't be done. If taxes for the top bracket increase the taxes for the lower brackets will increase as well

You missed my point. If taxes could be targeted to specific groups or people, politicians would increase taxes on their rivals and on possible revenue streams their rivals use.