Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The minimum wage isn't how we help the poor

ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 7:45:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I view myself as liberal and progressive and think greater equality is a good goal to strive towards. However it seems odd to me that so many people like me support the minimum wage. It has no doubt produced greater equality overall, but there are so many better ways to go about it and forcing wages up artificially is not one of them. It essentially tells workers that they cannot work for anything below that wage (unless it is zero). This is especially harmful for young people who may want to gain experience but realize their labour costs a company a lot in training costs and so need to start at a lower wage. If we do get rid of the minimum wage, then companies will either gain more profits or lower their prices. The government can then tax the company ( or consumer) and pay workers either a negative income tax (tax credits in the UK) or a basic income for all. This will help reduce inequality and not interfere in the market or restrict peoples options for work.

What do you guys think? Am I in the minority?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 8:39:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 7:45:01 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
However it seems odd to me that so many people like me support the minimum wage.

Smart person

It has no doubt produced greater equality overall

I just got done saying you were smart LOL. Remember, if I make say $20 an hour doing a job that took me 4 years of college plus another 4 years of other schooling and training; and you make say $10 an hour minimum wage for flipping burgers. Suddenly minimum wage goes to $15 an hour, a 50% increase for you, my wage stays the same, it does not rise equivalently as you would think. So you are now VERY close to making the same as a burger flipper as I am as I highly trained and educated person. Is this equality? Not in my eyes.

but there are so many better ways to go about it and forcing wages up artificially is not one of them.

Correct

It essentially tells workers that they cannot work for anything below that wage (unless it is zero). This is especially harmful for young people who may want to gain experience but realize their labor costs a company a lot in training costs and so need to start at a lower wage.

Correct

If we do get rid of the minimum wage, then companies will either gain more profits or lower their prices. The government can then tax the company ( or consumer) and pay workers either a negative income tax (tax credits in the UK) or a basic income for all.

Basic income for all? What do you mean?

This will help reduce inequality and not interfere in the market or restrict peoples options for work.

Depends on your definition of "inequality". My version of equality is "You get what you earn." Which means if you're too lazy or "cool" to graduate from high school and go to college, then your little minimum wage is what you deserve and is equal to your skills and knowledge.

What do you guys think? Am I in the minority?

What really needs to happen is the federal government needs to keep its greedy, selfish, grubby little hands out of the private sector and stop messing with the free market. Let employees and employers decide what their work is worth, specially when government can't even keep their own money and spending in check.

Next, get rid of the welfare state we have today, no more handouts. Here is what you do:

1) Enforce legislation demanding by law that every citizen achieves either their high school diploma or GED by the age of 21; with exceptions of course....VERY strict exceptions.

2) From the age of 18 to 21, every citizen is responsible for themselves, no welfare; with few exceptions again. During this time you can either work full-time, or you can work a minimum of part-time while you attend college full-time

3) If you find yourself jobless and not attending school by the age of 21, you have two choices: 1. join the military or 2. the tax payers will subsidize you for 4 years of college, room and board and whatever basic essentials you require during this 4 year span.

4) At the time you either graduate and gain a job, or you are unable to finish a bachelor's degree in this 4 years, your aide is cutoff completely. You are on your own; with exceptions again.

5) If you're screwed...you better figure something out because there are no more handouts. We gave you every opportunity in the world and you utterly failed for 25 years.

This idea would need some tweaks of course, but it is the basic plan. :)
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 8:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First a basic income. Look it up, i support it.
Second, for me, in the future age of machinery and technology, many people are going to lose their jobs and so cutting welfare for those out of work will do a great deal of harm. It will not be their fault that they can't work as well as a computer or machinery. We should not penalize them but compensate them out of the increased profits from those modernizing industries. We will eventually get to the point, in my generation, when so much is produced by machines and done online that many of us won't find work. This is a good thing as GDP will grow but under your proposals they will be left on the streets with nothing. Also in recessions, many will lose their jobs because of events far beyond their control. should we let them starve?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 9:31:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 8:57:10 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
First a basic income. Look it up, i support it.

Ahhhh....a free handout to everyone no matter what. Not a good idea when in America, we have $17 Trillion in debt, not to mention the $209 Trillion in unfunded liabilities which alone means every American tax payer currently owes about $1.1 million dollars in order to break even. Handing out more money for absolutely no return and no expectation would be the dictionary definition of insane.

Second, for me, in the future age of machinery and technology, many people are going to lose their jobs and so cutting welfare for those out of work will do a great deal of harm.

That's why I replaced welfare with an educational based subsidy. Instead of blindly tossing money at people with no accountability for an indefinite period of time, as we do now; we would instead pay for 4 years of college and all necessary daily expenses so you can focus strictly on school. This would be available to all citizens. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats forever.

It will not be their fault that they can't work as well as a computer or machinery.

If we get to the point that machines and computers start taking over all labor markets, we are in some serious trouble. The use of the educational based welfare system I propose should keep you out of the low skill jobs that the machines are taking over.

We should not penalize them but compensate them out of the increased profits from those modernizing industries.

Sooooo kill the free, capitalist market, force astronomically high taxes and use those taxes to pay the citizens? Great thought process until you realize that this eliminates growth and economic expansion. Not to mention it will force what labor markets we have left here in the West, either offshore to avoid these taxes or outsourced to completely avoid the taxation systems here.

We will eventually get to the point, in my generation, when so much is produced by machines and done online that many of us won't find work. This is a good thing as GDP will grow

No it won't. If this ends up happening, citizens will have no expendable income. They will only have the bare minimum that government provides to them. This means no purchasing power, no goods being purchased, no money flowing into the businesses you are sucking all this tax money from in order to pay the citizens, stock prices of businesses would in turn plummet, the major exchanges would then crash domestically, followed by an international market crash, this would severely devalue all global currencies. Quickly, all businesses would file for bankruptcy, demand a bailout, or close their doors to save what money they have left. This means no import/export and the tanking of the nation's GDP....not to mention a repeat of the great depression.

but under your proposals they will be left on the streets with nothing.

Look, if I hand your the world on a silver platter for 25 years of your life (a third of your life expectancy), giving you MULTIPLE chances to screw up and still make it out on top; yet you STILL find a way to screw that up, that's your own problem. I mean seriously, at what point in a person's life should they be expected to take responsibility for themselves, their lives and the choices they make in their lives?

Also in recessions, many will lose their jobs because of events far beyond their control. should we let them starve?

Again, I said there were exceptions.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:02:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"a free handout to everyone no matter what". Yes. Even Milton Friedman wanted a negative income tax, so that no-one could earn below a certain income. The basic income simply extends this to the unemployed as well who already receive welfare, allowing them a certain income. The level of that income should be decided but it seems you hate the very idea, regardless of of how high or low it will be.

Here is a thought experiment. lets say there is a starving adult. Any decent society will give him food, drink and shelter - as I hope you would. Therefore you are willing to give him a basic income of food, drink and shelter regardless. I am simply taking that one step further in saying that they should be allowed to live comfortably with say a Tv, phone, car etc.

"That's why I replaced welfare with an educational based subsidy". Education can only do so much. We will always have a need for cleaners and other low skilled workers. They will simply become less common and some will lose their jobs. A factory worker cannot be trained to become a software programmer, he will be too late to change his trade so quickly. Welfare will still be needed because there will always either be low paying ,low skilled jobs needing to be done or there will be those without the training or skills to change profession. These people will need welfare to live on.

"If this ends up happening, citizens will have no expendable income." Yes they will. Machinery will produce a large portion of goods while only some people are needed to man them, or are in the information and services industry. This will allow s to take more time off work. Where would those who have no employment get money? they would receive income from the state regardless, simply as a human right. This income will be at a level that the economy can sustain while people can work on top of that to earn extra income. How could we afford this? Firstly all welfare will be replaced with one single payment -it is not an additional one on top of welfare. The rich and companies will pay higher taxes and since machinery will make more output, it will allow us to either have more income or more leisure time, whichever we find more valuable.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 11:13:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Although none of these social welfare programs have done ANYTHING for societal advancement, and they have buried entire nations in massive debt; for some reason, people think they can just keep draining the wealthy for more and more cash to keep these programs afloat instead of eliminating the system and initiating a new one which make people more self-sufficient.

However, let's go with your idea and take more from the rich. My question to you is simple:

"What percentage of a rich person's income do you feel is fair to seize while ensuring you are fully subsidizing the 320 million Americans in the nation?"
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 11:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"What percentage of a rich person's income do you feel is fair to seize". In the UK, the highest income tax rate was 99.25%. Now I am not saying we should have that rate, but simply that 45% (what we have now in the UK) is peanuts compared to what it has been throughout history. The rich getting richer, while the poor are getting richer slower. Why not redistribute wealth more evenly.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 11:46:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 11:28:56 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
"What percentage of a rich person's income do you feel is fair to seize". In the UK, the highest income tax rate was 99.25%. Now I am not saying we should have that rate, but simply that 45% (what we have now in the UK) is peanuts compared to what it has been throughout history. The rich getting richer, while the poor are getting richer slower. Why not redistribute wealth more evenly.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 45%......what a joke. Nothing against you, understanding you're in the U.K. and all, so let me explain to you tax rates here for the wealthiest 5th of our nation:

Federal: Counting all regular credits and deductions: 39.6%
State: 10% average
Local: 1.5% average
Sales: 8% average

So, currently in the U.S., the wealthiest pay just under 60% tax rates, and that is just the basic income tax brackets, nothing special, plus average sales tax.

So, if we can't balance a budget with 60% tax rates....how would it work by decreasing this rate by 15%?
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 11:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First of all the UK does not have separate taxes in states so add Federal 39.6% + State: 10% average + Local: 1.5% average to equal 51%. Now, there will be an infinite number of loopholes that the rich exploit to pay as little as possible and so that falls significantly. Next VAT (british sales tax) is 20% and this largely affects the poorest rather than the rich as it is a flat tax on consumer goods. I see no reason why the UK shouldn't raise income tax to 70%, crack down on tax evasion and raise corproation tax and tax the royal family. The government can spend this to lower tax on the poor or increase social spending
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 12:14:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 11:59:24 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
First of all the UK does not have separate taxes in states so add Federal 39.6% + State: 10% average + Local: 1.5% average to equal 51%. Now, there will be an infinite number of loopholes that the rich exploit to pay as little as possible and so that falls significantly. Next VAT (british sales tax) is 20% and this largely affects the poorest rather than the rich as it is a flat tax on consumer goods. I see no reason why the UK shouldn't raise income tax to 70%, crack down on tax evasion and raise corproation tax and tax the royal family. The government can spend this to lower tax on the poor or increase social spending

LOL, did you see how that 75% tax rate on the wealthy in France worked out? It pushed the wealthy out of the labor market as they valued leisure over working to keep only $0.25 out of every dollar earned...they didn't need the income anyway right? Additionally, removing $0.75 of every dollar earned from the wealthy massively decreased the amount of capitol invested in the stock market and state economy. These items among others ended with the estimated annual 30 Billion Euro tax revenue increase just from the wealthy turning into the actual amount of about 15 billion euros annually and shrinking.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:42:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 1:58:16 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
The real problem is when 101% taxrate won't pay off your debts.....

It's there in some countries.

Yeah, I know. If every single cent Americans earn this year was spent on debt and unfunded liabilities, we still wouldn't be out of debt.

In fact, if the average american, making $50,000 a year, were to pay every cent he EVER makes, over the standard retirement length career of 20 years, toward his own unfunded liabilities, he would be $100,000 short.

We have so much money slated for upcoming scheduled payments by law, each American owes $1.1 million dollars in order to cover it.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 3:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 7:45:01 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
I view myself as liberal and progressive and think greater equality is a good goal to strive towards. However it seems odd to me that so many people like me support the minimum wage. It has no doubt produced greater equality overall, but there are so many better ways to go about it and forcing wages up artificially is not one of them. It essentially tells workers that they cannot work for anything below that wage (unless it is zero). This is especially harmful for young people who may want to gain experience but realize their labour costs a company a lot in training costs and so need to start at a lower wage. If we do get rid of the minimum wage, then companies will either gain more profits or lower their prices. The government can then tax the company ( or consumer) and pay workers either a negative income tax (tax credits in the UK) or a basic income for all. This will help reduce inequality and not interfere in the market or restrict peoples options for work.

What do you guys think? Am I in the minority?

Hm, the problem with this argument is that you're not looking at the broader reasons for the minimum wage or really considering the practical implications. The simple fact is that wage *has* to increase a little according to basic living needs/costs. For example, as housing, food prices, etc. go up--it's necessary for working class people to have a wage to accommodates that. There is no way that capping it would 'reduce inequality'; as technically, it would further it. The poor would simply become more poor, and actually less inclined to work. Additionally, their options are not exactly 'restricted' if they find a job and gain experience. Options would become restricted however if they had less money than what they already do.

The whole idea of working is to *earn* money, so on that level I fail to understand what your point is and how in this modern age it could possibly work.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:11:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Hm, the problem with this argument is that you're not looking at the broader reasons for the minimum wage or really considering the practical implications. The simple fact is that wage *has* to increase a little according to basic living needs/costs. For example, as housing, food prices, etc ".

well, my point is that a minimum wage is not the best way to help the poor. negative income taxes like Milton Friedman proposed is a much better choice and a basic income is even better. Essentially both of them involve having a set income for everyone with negative income tax for those working and who cannot live off their wage.

There is no way that capping it would 'reduce inequality'; as technically, it would further it. The poor would simply become more poor, and actually less inclined to work. Additionally, their options are not exactly 'restricted' if they find a job and gain experience. Options would become restricted however if they had less money than what they already do.

I am not sure what you mean? I do not want to "capping" anything. In terms of workers having less income, it would be provided by the government essentially topping up there wages as it does here in the UK. The government would get the money from taxing the businesses and consumers who benefit from lower wages.
Secondly my point about experience is that many companies do not want to take young people on on jobs at high wages because it will take them so much time and effort to train them and pay them that it wouldn't be worth it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:22:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 3:13:36 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 8/27/2015 7:45:01 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
I view myself as liberal and progressive and think greater equality is a good goal to strive towards. However it seems odd to me that so many people like me support the minimum wage. It has no doubt produced greater equality overall, but there are so many better ways to go about it and forcing wages up artificially is not one of them. It essentially tells workers that they cannot work for anything below that wage (unless it is zero). This is especially harmful for young people who may want to gain experience but realize their labour costs a company a lot in training costs and so need to start at a lower wage. If we do get rid of the minimum wage, then companies will either gain more profits or lower their prices. The government can then tax the company ( or consumer) and pay workers either a negative income tax (tax credits in the UK) or a basic income for all. This will help reduce inequality and not interfere in the market or restrict peoples options for work.

What do you guys think? Am I in the minority?

Hm, the problem with this argument is that you're not looking at the broader reasons for the minimum wage or really considering the practical implications. The simple fact is that wage *has* to increase a little according to basic living needs/costs. For example, as housing, food prices, etc. go up--it's necessary for working class people to have a wage to accommodates that. There is no way that capping it would 'reduce inequality'; as technically, it would further it. The poor would simply become more poor, and actually less inclined to work. Additionally, their options are not exactly 'restricted' if they find a job and gain experience. Options would become restricted however if they had less money than what they already do.

The whole idea of working is to *earn* money, so on that level I fail to understand what your point is and how in this modern age it could possibly work.

The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the fact that so few actually make the minimum wage, and as you increase the MW, the number of people making it goes up, but lowers over time.
The reason is, as you say, no one can afford to live on it, thus, no one (generally) works for it. They demand more or refuse to work, which forces the employer to pay more.

If you look at the history of those making the minimum wage in relation to the federal minimum wage increases, you will find that it is quite small, and with each passing year, the percent of employees earning it goes down, except when there is a spike due to the increase.

Ultimately, what minimum wage does, is just forces costs of goods to go up, which forces other employers to give raises, and this increases inflation, which forces the minimum wage to go up again, and the cycle repeats.
If you want evidence of this, ask yourself and others if they have ever been paid the training wage for the first 90 days, or if they have ever worked for an employer that could legally pay less than the "standard" minimum wage which is available to "small employers" (based on revenue, not size).
My work here is, finally, done.