Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When this is actually done, this result is not what happens that often. These raises go right back into the economy. These aren't people who save money, they're the economy's spenders.
IMO, if a business cannot afford to pay it's workers a livable wage (I'd settle for $11/hr, maybe $10.50/hr. $15/hr is outrageous) then it's not very well run and shouldn't be in business.
Mostly this would make sense, although "livable wage" is a misleading term as it depends on household size.
Sure, there are people who don't want to work. I'm not denying that. But why lump all into a generalization? There are lazy people at all levels of society.... many simply lucky to be born or married into wealth.
Why is it so easy to come to the conclusion that all "those" people are lazy and yet so hard to accept that there exists a portion that are simply dealt a bad hand in life?
I'm certainly not one to support "free hand outs" to the lazy (of anyone at any income level... including the rich). I'm not responding to that argument. What I'm saying is the first step to a solution is to identify and accurately describe a problem. To cop it off to lazy people simply ignores that there is a fundamental problem that is increasingly more prevalent in our country. I believe that's why the OP started this thread.
Income inequality isn't about those that work for their wealth/living versus those that refuse to work (lazy). Income inequality is about those that DO work... many squarely situated in middle-class... but are slipping. And if the middle class is indeed slipping out of the middle class, the poor are certainly not faring any better.
The people who are suffering today are the same people who in the past were too lazy to become actively involved in their own futures. They sat on their asses watching TV instead of educating themselves on the political issues that were threatening their survival. Even when people like Ross Perot got on TV and showed them what was going to happen to them through the globalization caused by trade agreements like NAFTA they were either too lazy or too stupid to become actively involved.
It is a fact that prosperity can be the most destructive element in any society provided those people are not aware of its dangers. Every election is testament to the peoples stupidity. As a result the people have gotten the government they deserve and the government has sold itself the wealthy and acts today completely in their interests.
The fact is that the majority of people do not even know what the problem is or even admit there is a problem. How do you begin to solve the problems in such a quagmire of stupidity.
The people who are suffering today are the same people who in the past were too lazy to become actively involved in their own futures. They sat on their asses watching TV instead of educating themselves on the political issues that were threatening their survival. Even when people like Ross Perot got on TV and showed them what was going to happen to them through the globalization caused by trade agreements like NAFTA they were either too lazy or too stupid to become actively involved.
It is a fact that prosperity can be the most destructive element in any society provided those people are not aware of its dangers. Every election is testament to the peoples stupidity. As a result the people have gotten the government they deserve and the government has sold itself the wealthy and acts today completely in their interests.
The fact is that the majority of people do not even know what the problem is or even admit there is a problem. How do you begin to solve the problems in such a quagmire of stupidity.
I'm sorry.... how do we go from your generalization of the lazy to Ross Perot, NAFTA, and voter stupidity? Sounds like you just itching to rant on any topic. Then ended in talking about some sort of "problem" (which you left undefined) with blame on "quagmire of stupidity"?
I do agree with one thing you said.... "government that has sold itself the wealthy and acts today completely with their interests"? IMO, nothing.. I mean nothing will improve for anyone in middle and lower class until the government starts representing everyone's interests.
Don't say it's not a problem in the United States, because it is.
Let's discuss some policy approaches to alleviating the gross income and wealth inequality. For starters, income inequality and wealth inequality are different. Also, inequality is natural. The goal is to create a system where it isn't a drag on the economy and poverty can be minimized. Excessive inequality is a drag on the economy, which is a fact.
Its not a "fact" that "excessive" inequality is a drag on the economy, that's an opinion.
It is however, certainly achievable to attain the goal of Income Equality, if you'd want to.
However, the problem is that the level of income is likely to be less than what it is now. Discouraging the well-to-do from producing at a high level because it would contribute excessively to inequality would deny Americans of many innovations from I-phones to the new Microsoft products, all produced after Gates and Jobs were already very wealthy. It would deny Americans the entertainment provided by wealthy and popular athletes, musicians and actors who produced long after they became rich.
I'd rather have a society where the average Joe makes $50k and we have folks around with unlimited wealth, as opposed to a society where everyone just makes $30k
However, the problem is that the level of income is likely to be less than what it is now. Discouraging the well-to-do from producing at a high level because it would contribute excessively to inequality would deny Americans of many innovations from I-phones to the new Microsoft products, all produced after Gates and Jobs were already very wealthy. It would deny Americans the entertainment provided by wealthy and popular athletes, musicians and actors who produced long after they became rich.
I'd rather have a society where the average Joe makes $50k and we have folks around with unlimited wealth, as opposed to a society where everyone just makes $30k
No, it does not discourage the well to do from producing at a high level.
A society where everyone just makes $30K was not suggested anywhere in the OP.
No, it does not discourage the well to do from producing at a high level.
.
How does confiscatory levels of taxation against affluent people encourage them to produce?
I just don't see it.
If you max out the amount one person could earn, at say $10 Million, they will be inclined to sit on their keisters for the rest of their lives instead of continuing to produce at a high rate.
Why work for the privilege of just turning over your earnings to the tax collector? I suppose some people would, but relatively few.
The 30k is a representative amount to indicate that we would have a lower standard of living if we encouraged successful people to sit down after they earned a "reasonable" amount of money.
How does confiscatory levels of taxation against affluent people encourage them to produce?
I just don't see it.
If you max out the amount one person could earn, at say $10 Million, they will be inclined to sit on their keisters for the rest of their lives instead of continuing to produce at a high rate.
Why work for the privilege of just turning over your earnings to the tax collector? I suppose some people would, but relatively few.
The 30k is a representative amount to indicate that we would have a lower standard of living if we encouraged successful people to sit down after they earned a "reasonable" amount of money.
Marginal tax rates of 100% or more are indeed dumb.
I'm sorry.... how do we go from your generalization of the lazy to Ross Perot, NAFTA, and voter stupidity? Sounds like you just itching to rant on any topic. Then ended in talking about some sort of "problem" (which you left undefined) with blame on "quagmire of stupidity"?
I do agree with one thing you said.... "government that has sold itself the wealthy and acts today completely with their interests"? IMO, nothing.. I mean nothing will improve for anyone in middle and lower class until the government starts representing everyone's interests.
But people don't kownwhat is in their best interest. The government, media and corporations all want more immigrqtion. Immigration does hurt the middle and lower because it increases labor supply. But hey it's the middle class liberal people who support immigration reform, who belittle anti immigrant people, and made a fashion out of something they don't benefit from. They do so because they bought into carefully crafted rhetoric by the media and opinion leaders. The real deal gets covered by cultural rhetoric.
People want a government for them. That's not the problem. The problem is what they think is for them. So when they think reject corporate America, they are buying into corporate ideas without knowing. You do get the government you deserve. There are people who are well meaning and innocent. There are people who want to keep it that way.
Immigrqtion is proof that American liberal supporters actively vote against their interest and brag about their embarrassment in public. The government isn't sold to the rich. The people want to help the rich. It's democratic!
How does confiscatory levels of taxation against affluent people encourage them to produce?
I just don't see it.
If you max out the amount one person could earn, at say $10 Million, they will be inclined to sit on their keisters for the rest of their lives instead of continuing to produce at a high rate.
Why work for the privilege of just turning over your earnings to the tax collector? I suppose some people would, but relatively few.
The 30k is a representative amount to indicate that we would have a lower standard of living if we encouraged successful people to sit down after they earned a "reasonable" amount of money.
Such as the well to do that will produce less. It is everybody that will produce less when their income is guaranteed. What's there to work for if you already have the handouts?!
Marginal tax rates of 100% or more are indeed dumb.
I don't think that was being suggested, however.
Once you get marginal rates above a reasonable rate like 25%, you're going to see a slack off in people wanting to produce more. It doesn't have to get all the way to 100%.
During the roaring 20's, the marginal tax rate was at the 25% level with Harding and Coolidge. President Hoover raised it to 63% or so, and the financial panic of 1929 swirled out of control in the unproductive, low income 1930's. We had a lot of equality in the 30's, but it wasn't good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
