Give American (U.S.) Workers a 30% Pay Raise

The only way to create a vulinary raise in wages and a lowering prices is to end outsourcing.

Abolishing taxes does nothing to incent a business to pay more, or charge less.

However, if business could not export jobs to sweatshops, it forces them to use only American labor.

The more jobs there are, the more businesses are forced to compete for the best workers, even for basic jobs like sweeping floors. This means an increase in pay, and better benefits.

 

No. Sales taxes make consumers poorer, so those consumers cannot afford to buy as much. When consumers have less to spend then demand is reduced. Less demand causes less production; which causes lower wages.

Income taxes work the same way but from the opposite direction.

A steeply progressive income tax is better than a flat income tax because it falls heavier on rent income, which comprises the bulk of the income that the rich capture. The more taxation falls on rents the less it effects production incentives, so that is why steeply progressive income taxes are better for the economy. But, while steeply progressive income taxes are better than flat income taxes, they are not nearly as efficient as taxes which are designed to fall exclusively on rent.

I doubt you have a good understanding of what economic rent is … you might gain some insight by reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

 

Wrong. We can raise wages by eliminating economic parasites from the system. There are a lot of non-producers (I'm talking about the rich) who are receiving a great share of production while contributing very little.

If abolishing taxes gives greater incentive to open new businesses then competition for employees will rise. A person might be a great plumber but be unwilling to comply with all the paperwork intensive tax regulations. Abolishing these taxes would bring more of these competitors to the market.

So Americans will labor more but receive less. Protectionism increases consumer prices more than it increases wages, always has – always will.

No it doesn't. The poor have landlords and if those landlord see that their tenants are earning more money then those landlords will increase their rent demands. Having been in property management, I have seen this first hand. Here Winston Churchill explains how working people are kept poor

 

Another fine idea would be to eliminate the "Guest Worker" program here in the US.
By eliminating the option of bringing in cheap foreign labor we open those jobs to Americans.
These are not only farm hands. They also bring in cheap Tech people and Construction workers.
Remove these options and labor scarcity will naturally drive up wages.

 

Well apparently you think workers in China deserve more...oh wait...

 

So, you are in favor of a single payer healthcare system? That's what I'm reading from you post. I agree, employers should not be bearing this burden. This should be paid by all taxpayers, just like the police and firefighters. Healthcare should be a nationwide responsibility paid by taxes. No one gets more healthy as they age. They obviously get sicker and die. That's just life. None of this should be part of business. It's not profitable. This needs to be part of government like the police and fire departments. No one gets healthier as they age. We all get sick and die at some point.

 

Labor is worth very little because we have tax systems designed to produce that result.

Who do you think receives the financial benefits of government spending? Well I'll tell you, it is landowners. When government builds a new road the land near that road increases in value; the road makes the land more productive and desirable. This is not up for debate. It is an easily observable fact that land near high quality public infrastructure and services is many times more valuable than land just a few miles away; see Henry George Theorem –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem.

So the system we have is designed to tax production and trade in order to supply funding for infrastructure and services which will increase the productivity and desirability of land, allowing landowners to charge greater rents. It is a system designed to transfer wealth (at least 20% of GDP) from producer and consumers to landowners; not even the guy who sweeps the floor can escape paying his share.

You are wrong on this too. Owners who take out loans as in your scenario are actually taking capital value from the people they employ. Banks don't loan out the money that is deposited into the bank. That money is put into the banks reserves. The money to satisfy the loan is created out of thin air and this new money reduces the value of the workers wages (their capital). Bank loans increase the purchasing power of the person taking out the loan, but decrease the purchasing power of wage earners by an equal amount. But the system is designed to give the wage earners nothing for their loss of capital value, and give that gain wholly to the bankers and the person taking out the loan.

 

correct women have had an impact on wages in the workforce, but for those who will be offended we said women, its not because they are women, its simply because they are another body working, nothing to do with being female (why do I always feel the need to defend before we get attacked lol)... even unskilled labor can be highly rewarded as my north dakota example proved, there is no reason walmart employees need to be paid $18 starting wages, other than a labor shortage forcing them just to get warm bodies in the door... other highly skilled jobs in that area pay higher than average of course, but they don't double in wages as the lowest skilled jobs have recently in that area, because those with the highly skilled jobs, are often brought in from other areas, whereas these low skilled jobs are not brought in by companies from the outside, which is why they benefit the most from a labor shortage...

think about doctors for americas labor shortage, we import them cheaply from other countries rather than train more, so we don't inflate their wages that much compared to low skilled jobs where importing them is expensive... you would expect much much higher wages because of the sheer shortage companies have with them, but yet their wages have been minimally impacted since highly skilled jobs have a vast resource pool to pull from for little increases... you don't double that doctors wages simply because they are paid so little in other places its cheap to bring them in... a doctor making 15k in india versus making 150k in america...

when I say skim off the top, I don't mean profits are not their money... but when the intent of the tax break is to help the low income people, they are essentially skimming money off the top and not giving it to the people we "intended" it to be for... so we're essentially paying people at the top instead of the money getting to the people we wanted it to affect the greatest... thats what I meant by skimming... people seem to think if we reduce taxes 10% that 10% will make it to the bottom... when we'll be lucky to see 2% reach the bottom after everyone along the way takes some of that reduction... right or wrong, its just reality... thats why I say tax breaks don't dollar for dollar impact the people targeted, it impacts many others first and we're lucky if it finally trickles down to our target...

which is why I say a labor shortage is the greatest and most efficient way to impact wages and growth in the lower class, tax breaks will ultimately affect the lowest pool of people, but dollar for dollar is the least efficient and will be the least effective overall method... while it may be easier to just cut a tax, compared to create a labor shortage, thats a whole other issue on how to address each one in the most efficient way...

yes I have been in business, and I have been the benefit of tax cuts, and guess what, what I've said is what played out... I pay myself a little more, and some of it will get absorbed into lower prices so I can compete, and some of it will get absorbed into reinvestment, but very very little ever makes its way to the workers... so ultimately it wasn't an efficient and dollar for dollar way to benefit low wage workers... it benefited me at the top and some in the middle, and very few at the bottom... essentially trickle down economics as you hope I spend the money in a way that benefits them... but it doesn't really accomplish that... because the labor supply remained the same, so nothing changed with my demand for workers to change my pay for them... I still kept the same employees, they still had the same skills, and no changes were needed, so why would they ever be the recipients of a tax break...

anyhow if america wants to help the poor folks... deport illegals and create a supply shortage of workers... wages will rise until people are willing to fill the jobs "no american is willing to take"... sure this will increase cost of those goods as a result, but often the retail cost increase in a labor shortage is less than that wage increases associated with it for those people... hence north dakota and walmart/mcdonalds paying $18 an hour to start...

 

we weren't talking about "sales taxes"... we were talking about the payroll taxes, and regulations and fees associated with hiring employees and such... the hidden taxes you don't see on your paycheck or on a register receipt... the ones a business pays...

so thanks for completely hijacking and lecturing me on the wrong thing...

because I already acknowledge and agree sales taxes are regressive and harm the poor more than the wealthy... thats why I am shocked to see chicago jacking their sales tax up to now 11.25% or something to fill their budget gaps, that will only harm the poor people in chicago and do nothing to help them...

but once again, thanks for not reading the message and assuming you know what we're talking about, instead of reading the words we used...

 

once again, thank you for hijacking and lecturing the completely wrong thing...

maybe you should spend more time understanding what people are discussing instead of pushing some agenda on a completely separate point two people are having am exchange over...

we're not talking about sales taxes like you were, we're not talking about regressive or progressive incomes taxes like you were, we're not talking about the "land value tax" dealing with someones rent...

if you'd like to lecture me on economics anymore, please re-read all the messages and try again once you understand we're talking about the impact of payroll taxes and all the regulations and fees associated with hiring someone...

please explain to me how reducing payroll taxes would benefit low income workers... it won't, it'll benefit the owners with little trickle down to the poor... so all we're doing is inflating the wealth of those at the top and hoping it trickles its way down through supply and demand purchases when in reality its the least efficient method to impact low wages... at most it'll sustain low paying jobs for a little longer but won't increase wages...

instead of there was a labor shortage, the wealth would directly go to those low wage workers who would benefit from competition among employers to hire them with higher wages and benefits... thats the most effective and efficient way to target the people we want to help... now I acknowledge it hard to create an artificial labor shortage, america only did it successfully once when they created social security and allowed people to retire from working, flooding the market with demand for workers... they've never been able to do it since...

but they could again, by deporting illegals and create another supply shortage putting pressure on low wages and increasing them just to get warm bodies in the door... this wouldn't make the rich richer, it would only make the poor richer... hence why its the most efficient way to impact the people intended...

 

just like when women started working and households had two incomes, eventually that would become the norm and would have no long term benefit, costs would rise to match it and out government would have less money

I say we need a flat tax, tax every dollar earned over the poverty line the same

maybe the first 50k of investment income per year could be tax free

 

Your fear is reality. A free market. Unless, you support communism and govt control over the price of everything? If so, there are other countries you can move to you might like more=) Cuba is right around the corner? China is pretty good there. Go complain to that govt and see what they think about paying their people more, hehe. The whole reason our wages have dropped or jobs left, is because China and others allow for slave and child labor. Can't compete with countries who have no rules.

 

You are wrong. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you have your mind made up, and are unwilling to learn concepts that are new to you. If I am wrong about you, you can watch this video to learn how the rich are using the tax system to get richer and make the poor poorer.

[video=youtube;6ZkfmY1PMng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZkfmY1PMng[/video]

 

[MENTION=13235]geofree[/MENTION] claims that we ought not own land because land is produced by nature. However, he allows that we ought to be able to own other things like gold, iron, wool, and wheat. Gold (periodic element Au) and iron (Fe) are also made by nature. Likewise wool is a natural product, not created by man, as is wheat. No person has ever created a grain of wheat. Only nature can do so.

So I am simply pointing out goefree's inconsistency. He wants to apply a different rule for land than for any other nature produced resource.

 

I'm not wrong at all, we were discussing a very specific thing, and you jumped in with comments completely unrelated to the specific thing we were discussing... this isn't a matter of "you're too stupid to get it" or "you refuse to accept information" or "I'm right and you're wrong"... this is, you failed to respond to what we were talking about and hijacked it to a completely different topic...

if you want to go back to discussing payroll taxes and the impact that has on the wage of workers... by all means discuss that tax... but if you just want to throw out a completely different tax method that has nothing to do with payroll taxes, have that discussion with people who want to argue that other tax is good or bad... you keep citing "proof" of a concept we're not even discussing... stay on point, don't hijack it with another type of tax not related to the discussion two people are having... you're like a guy at a party listening in on a conversation about motorcycles, and telling us cars are better... if you want to talk about the motorcycle being discussed, add something relevant to that discussion, don't bring up a whole different tangent and act as if its relevant to the very specific point being made... yes both have wheels, great, but we were specifically talking about the foot rest, don't tell us about the turn signal...

learn the difference...

 

I'm not sure why that's what you're getting from my post as I made no mention of it. I was simply pointing out that when people complain of wage stagnation they don't understand where their raise money went. If you saddle employers with paying for non work related expenses like health care you aren't going to see much of a raise because most of it went to rising premiums and such. These expenses have nothing to do with your employer and eat away at any monetary gains you might have made.
Single payer could work if implemented correctly, though I see little evidence that it would be. Figure out health care and retirement and such or don't, but it has nothing to do with your employer.

 

[video]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/[/video]

 

:O You are outtt there ..WOW
Oh my goodness.
You know what would better than a tax on the right to own property?
Paying rent to the government for what you own?

..and would put hundreds if not thousands of dollars in each American's pocket every year?
Only 15% percent of the gasoline (and diesel) goes to what it's supposed to.The rest gets earmarked for pork-barrel projects (wasted)
I say cut 85% of that extra 80 cents everyone pays the government for every single gallon of fuel bought in America and shrink the government a notch.
Side note: Why is rent so high anyway? People pay way more for rent nowadays and income has barely gone up a notch.
I was taught by an older guy when I was young you should be able to pay for housing with 1 week's worth of work.
Btw,That video is British and trying to justify jacking somebody's property tax up.
Or are there no property taxes in UK?
They're about maxed out here in the US. (In my state anyways)

 

The value of labor is not tied to taxes in the simplistic way you imply. The value of labor is determined by the supply of people that can do it and the demand for it. If no one is buying the skill that you're selling then it is worthless regardless of what sort of taxes the employers pay. Yes you can theoretically tax people out of a job, but that isn't the issue in the US today. The issue is that we have (aside from making employers responsible for health care etc) a glut in the labor market making low skilled labor essentially worthless. Let's use a real world example: in the 90s a drywaller could make about $30 per hour, today they make about $9 due to the influx of low skilled labor from central and South America who were willing to do it much cheaper than Americans. That has nothin to do with taxes as employers don't pay Medicare and such for illegal immigrants.

Who receives the benefits from government spending? Nearly everyone. Sure your land value might rise if the government puts a freeway in or something. But they may also take your land for little compensation to build it in the first place. And when the government subsidizes things like school, poverty, or agriculture how do land owners reap sole benefit? There are also expenditures that are more or less neutral. The gov builds a new city hall building for example, how did you as a homeowner reap sole benefit? You didn't. This view of land value is an over simplification. Without some level of infrastructure there wouldn't be any jobs for employees to do in the first place, so it makes sense that everyone pays for it.
Also, for your ideas about taxing production and trade, keep in mind that people pay outrageous property taxes, even for non commercial property.

As for the rest, I am aware of fractional reserve lending and how banking works but that has nothing to do with anything. The owner in my scenario isn't taking anything from employees because there were no employees when the money was borrowed or even after the business started. Employees were added after the business began to grow. If goods or services are added to the economy then adding money does not inflate the currency in an appreciable way.
You started this by saying that American workers should get a 30% raise, but you still haven't answered why they deserve it.

 

a good and fun experiment is to keep track of all the taxes you pay out for one year..sales tax gas tax..utility tax..all the taxes..and it will blow your mind...i did a few years ago and i was shocked...and dont forget income taxes and fica taxes too

 

Yes obviously it's not because they are women, they could be gender neutral clones, it is because twice as many people are now available to fill the same jobs. I would think that was pretty evident from what we wrote and the logistics of what is being discussed. You're a better man than I, because I don't have the patience for PC disclaimers anymore. If people want to be offended by some straw man they make up, let them.

About skimming; sorry I misunderstood what you wrote. I agree fully that cutting taxes for employers will not impact wages because I am a small business owner and I wouldn't pay people more just because I got a tax break, in much the same way employees wouldn't choose to pay $10 for a McDonalds hamburger just because they got a tax break. There is no incentive.
Your last paragraph is a harsh truth that I don't think many Americans are willing to accept. You don't have to dislike Mexico or Mexicans to want to protect your own economy but it will be "think of the children" as soon as you bring it up because most people don't understand economics. They only way to go bak to anything resembling the good ole days would be to reverse globalization. Yes people would pay more for products but they would make more money and be able to afford it if there was more money in their local economy. If you endorse protectionism you will be labeled an isolationist and dismissed from conversation.

 

I do not support property taxes as they exist today. I only support a land value tax, which does not tax any improvements that are built on the land. Let me start out by saying that I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. With that out of the way, here is what I propose. I propose that we abolish all taxes on wages, savings, trade and fixed improvements; any tax that burdens these beneficial activities should be wiped from the law books. This will relieve the economy of all tax burdens, allowing wages to rise and consumer prices to fall.

Next, I propose that we increase taxes on land values until land prices fall to zero. Land value taxes do not burden the economy so the economy will remain unburdened by taxation (wages will remain high and consumer prices will remain low). Land rent is estimated to be about 20% of GDP which is enough to fund necessary government activities.

People who do not own any land would not have any tax liability … none at all. Land value taxes cannot be passed to tenants, so the rents that tenants pay (for a home or apartment) would not change from current levels. If you buy a home you would pay the land value tax, but land value taxation does not favor owners over renters (or vise-versa) , so whether you buy or rent your costs will be pretty much identical. If you do not like the idea of paying the land value tax, you can rent a home at the same cost as today, but you will be living completely tax free by making that choice.

Unimproved farm and ranch land would be legally owned as it is now, but otherwise rented from the community. The rent collected would be used to finance the high cost of maintaining the roads in those sparsely populated areas, with any remaining rent being returned to the citizens of the community equally.

Now, everything I have said is true but as this is a new idea to many people, they are often skeptical. If you have any questions I will try to answer them. Otherwise, what do you feel is wrong with this plan?

 

You fail with the bolded immediately.
Your proposal gives 0 incentive to own land.AND screws landlords.
Who grows the food? landowners.
You must be around 20 or so and like the greenery or something.
By the way,current rent levels are insanely high compared to the income of people.

 

Replacing the current forms of taxation with a land value tax would remove all tax burdens from production and trade (removing all of the dead-weight losses of taxation). But that is not the only benefit. Land value taxation also brings land to the market and opens opportunities that are now monopolized. Henry George wrote a short chapter which explains it better. I do hope you have a few minutes to spare to read it (link below), then once you better understand the effects land value taxation has on opening opportunities, I can answer any questions you might have.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp35.htm

"The user of land should not be allowed to acquire rights of indefinite duration for single payments. For efficiency, for adequate revenue and for justice, every user of land should be required to make an annual payment to the local government equal to the current rental value of the land that he or she prevents others from using."— Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics, 1987

 

I am right, nothing you say can change that.

The system I advocate encourages people to own land because then they can use the land to produce goods, which they can sell tax and paperwork free.

Landowners do not produce any wealth, so they do not deserve any wealth. I can easily prove this point if you do not believe it, just say the word.

Farmers grow food. Landowner take a portion of that food farmers grow, and give nothing back in return.

For your information this is not my idea. It was introduced and advocated by Adam Smith (AKA, the father of capitalism) over two hundred years ago, in his book 'The Wealth of Nations'.

The original Constitution of the U.S.A. called for all federal funding to come from land value taxation.

Today land value taxation is advocated by the top economists in the western world. In 1990 many of them signed an Open Letter to Mikhail Gorbachev advising him to do better than the United States, by using land value taxation to fund the government. Below is a link to that letter which was signed by over two dozen highly respected western economists, including four Nobel Prize winning economists.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_%281990%29

That is because land is monopolized. By last account I know of (~1975), about 95% of all privately owned land in the U.S. is owned by about 3% of the population. That is just plain stupid, and is the result of the system you cherish.