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.
Why not expect the poor to have twelve people sharing an apartment? How about twenty?
I would have no problem that. But as I’ve described, it isn’t necessary, notwithstanding your attempted reductio ad absurdum.
Quote:
The expectation of being able to afford a meager household of one's own is based on custom Its what I grew up with and its what the people I knew grew up with as well.
It may be a custom, but it is unreasonable if one can’t afford it. To expect others to provide it because it is a “custom” is ridiculous.
Quote:
I think there may be an honest issue about whether a lower wage should be tolerable for entry level employees in the work force like high school students and college student with summer jobs. However, an older person should be receiving a living wage and the customary and cultural expectation would be that they can afford some meager existence on their own.
One should have what one can afford. This is a pretty simple concept.
Quote:
Based on past posts, I doubt that you even believe in a minimum wage, let alone a "living wage". Most of us here do. The few who do not are simply in the minority.
I don’t believe in a minimum wage. It has the effect of pricing some workers out of the market. People of your ilk are apparently OK with that, but I’m not.
Quote:
I pay a lot of taxes and I am footing the bill for businesses who do not pay a living wage. One example is Walmart. Walmart literally has offered seminars to employees in some locations showing them how they can apply for medicaid and other public benefits.
You pay a lot of taxes because of society’s determination that we need a safety net. When someone at the lower rungs of society gets a job at WalMart, the effect is that the burden on society is lessened, not increased as you seem to believe. Without the job at WalMart, this person in on the public dole 100%. With a job at WalMart, this person is on the dole at some level less than 100%. This should be self-evident. It’s shocking that you and so many others aren’t able to understand this very simple concept.
Theoretically, we have had a maximum wage law in the past. Franklin Roosevelt, in the 1930's, suggested a wartime cap of $25K a year, $400k in today's dollars, but chose Option B: 88% tax rate on anything over $200k.
And we had the 90% tax rates during the Republican administration of Eisenhower.
Some suggest a limit of $5 million, and others at $500k, and anything above that, tax of 100%.
Another suggestion would be ratio's of executive pay to employee income, like 12 to 1
Comments?
It's a horrible idea and quite dangerous. If something like that were passed you would have a fleeing of companies from the US. It's a foreign government's wet dream.
It's a horrible idea and quite dangerous. If something like that were passed you would have a fleeing of companies from the US. It's a foreign government's wet dream.
One of my previous employers was a $10bln global corporation headquartered in Switzerland. Switzerland passed a similar law, so the company moved to Ireland. That was a loss of tax revenue for Switzerland, but more importantly, it resulted in about 1,400 jobs moving out of the country.
All because they wanted to impose someone's opinion of "morality". Yikes.
Originally Posted by markg91359;51908468FTR, I do [B
not[/b] support a maximum wage law. I think the market--in most cases--is better suited to determine wages than Congress or a legislature. However, I do think when we have budget deficits of the size we do that taxes on those with higher incomes should be more than what they currently are. One hundred percent? No. Seventy five percent? No. Fifty percent? Absolutely, with limited deductions available. I am not interested in cutting defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, or educational assistance so that the upper income folks can have new swimming pools and a host of luxury goods that weren't dreamed of fifty years ago, when marginal tax rates were higher on upper income folks.
So in fact you do support a maximum wage law. If I can afford a new swimming pool, I'm fair game for the tax and spend folks. Sorry, but there is not enough money in the world to satisfy those who have their hands in our pockets. Having spent decades working in the House and Senate in D.C., I know whereof I speak. Those people have zero concern for your tax dollars. ZERO!
I had retired when Obama was elected but clearly recall the difficulty he had filling positions. Timothy Geithner, his pick for Treasury Secretary had all kinds of tax problems - he being the Obama choice to boss the IRS! And he was not alone.
Those guys and gals understood, as most of us do not, the wastefulness that is Washington. $21 trillion and growing. You plan on fixing that with higher taxes? Good luck.
I would have no problem that. But as I’ve described, it isn’t necessary, notwithstanding your attempted reductio ad absurdum.
Its not absurd at all. If some conservatives had their way its exactly the kind of economy they would construct. The top 1% would have 90% of the wealth and the rest of us would make do with the 10%. We've seen a trend towards more and more pyramiding of wealth at the top of this society for decades. Four will become ten will become twenty its just a matter of time if we continue on a trend towards laisse faire economics.
It may be a custom, but it is unreasonable if one can’t afford it. To expect others to provide it because it is a “custom” is ridiculous.
I think the majority doesn't view it that way. We view it in terms of establishing a floor and creating minimal living standards. I'm talking about working people here. I'm talking about people who want to work a forty hour work week and bust their butts to earn a living. There is nothing ridiculous about that. I suppose one could argue that its only a "custom" that we give hungry people food to prevent starvation. I call it basic humanity in the wealthiest country on Earth. Sadly, some do not believe in basic humanity.
One should have what one can afford. This is a pretty simple concept.
Unless what one can afford does not even allow for the sustenance of life. That is why modern countries created the social safety net which is a series of labor laws and welfare laws designed to prevent exploitation of the bottom ranks of society.
I don’t believe in a minimum wage. It has the effect of pricing some workers out of the market. People of your ilk are apparently OK with that, but I’m not.
With four percent unemployment and even entry level workers like my seventeen year old daughter able to earn more than the minimum wage I submit the minimum wage isn't pricing any workers out of the market. We could raise it $2 to $3 per hour with little effect on the labor market right now. However, the law is meant to establish a standard. If an employer truly cannot afford to pay $7.25 an hour for a job than that is a job that either (1) shouldn't be done; or (2) should be done in a country with a lesser standard of living than the USA.
You pay a lot of taxes because of society’s determination that we need a safety net. When someone at the lower rungs of society gets a job at WalMart, the effect is that the burden on society is lessened, not increased as you seem to believe. Without the job at WalMart, this person in on the public dole 100%. With a job at WalMart, this person is on the dole at some level less than 100%. This should be self-evident. It’s shocking that you and so many others aren’t able to understand this very simple concept.
Middle class entitlements and defense spending account for the lion's share of our federal budget. Take out Defense, Social Security, and Medicare and the rest left over is not terribly significant. Things like national parks and pollution regulation aren't aimed at helping the poor, but constitute a considerable share of valuable federal spending. The safety net is a small part of my taxes. Walmart could afford to raise its workers wages and has already done so--a little--without any appreciable harm. We can and should demand more about business than we do. They always threaten to go overseas or automate. Proper use of tax policy would prevent a lot of that.
I think you would have been much happier in the America of the 1890's. The problem is that we passed laws to end many of the abuses that occurred back in the Laisse Faire Era. We've been sliding backwards though for too long. Things change. Eventually, the masses will demand their share of the prosperity coming out of the new economy.
100% tax at any level of earnings is ludicrous. Why would anyone work for zero pay? Those making that kind of money aren’t stupid. They’d just reduce their hours/efforts to earn just below the 100% tax level. I know I would. I’d rather enjoy more leisure time than work for free to support a greedy government.
Pro sports is a bit of a special case, because the product is competition. If one team is winning everything in sight, it's going to be boring. Then nobody watches, and the league goes out of business.
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.
