Do you believe in a living wage?

Let's think about this ....

Let's say a "living wage" was gradually phased in for full time working people. The recipients of this living wage would really be no better off than they were because they would only be earning enough to survive. Their income would only pay for the things that we taxpayers were paying for anyway. They would not be adding to the demand for goods. People who were making just a living wage already would have no more money or spending power than they had before. All of us making more than a living wage would have no more money or spending power than we had before, so we wouldn't be adding to demand either. (Well, maybe we'd have a little more if there was a tax cut because of the reduction in welfare.)

So the fact is, nobody would gain very much more spending power than what they had before, so there wouldn't be an appreciable demand for more goods. So if businesses and corporations tried to pass this on to the consumer, what do you think would happen?

I think one of the things that would happen is that the tremendous amount of money at the top of the pyramid would be forced downwards, and I think that would be good for the country as a whole.

We might be able to realize a reduction in the annual federal deficit, and that would be good.

And we would be reinforcing - or should I say "giving a rebirth to" - the idea that you have to work to get by, not rely on others, which I also think would be good.

Or, we can just leave the welfare state as it is, which I'm sure would make the politicians and their owners very happy.

Seth

 

I agree with this, and I would go further and abolish all taxes on company income altogether. In its most fundamental sense, a business or corporation is nothing more than individuals - a few or many - working cooperatively together to make a living. We should tax individual income, but why we tax the vehicle for making that income in the first place baffles me.

Seth

 

The rich have enormous purchasing power. But they do not keep millions in the bank that is not used by the market.

If they could store the cash so it did not reach the market, this solution of dumping the pyramid upside down has a chance.

Things like this get discussed in economics. If I suddenly got a flood of cash from the rich, sure ... I would put some of it to use and save for a rainy day. Even kids have to stop eating icecream. We consumers would quickly rise to the dependent class were we handed that much money. Still since the rich wealth is in general a lot of stocks. How do you take the stocks and turn them over to a person like me? Also the rich own property. Do we all get a square foot of their land?

Economically, how does these socialist schemes work in real life. Lottery winners is a good place to study why the poor and even working class have no clue how to handle tons of cash when they get it from the rich.

 

I am with you up to the income tax. This should not be taxed. Sales should be taxed.

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

 

What constitutes a livable wage in your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

Name one instance in which raising minimum wage reduced poverty in the US.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nyda...cle-1.2492941?client=ms-android-uscellular-us

 

It doesn't really. Know why? Because regardless of the minimum wage increases of 35 cents or a dollar or whatever, that doesn't make the income an income a person can independently survive on. So we augment their income with welfare, so they can survive. You and I, Amy. Our money goes to the government, and the government gives it to them in the form of cash, housing, food stamps, and either free or subsidized Obamacare. It actually discourages going to work instead, imo.

 

I have always thought sales taxes that exclude the necessities of life are a far better way to tax than to tax personal income.

 

Robert, are you saying that I am suggesting a "socialist scheme"?

I am a conservative, but I am independent, and I think for myself. I am suggesting that people work for a living and that a full day's work should be rewarded by a roof over their head and a full stomach, without having the government take someone else's money from them and give it to them instead. What I am suggesting is more than conservative; it is damn reactionary! It's 2017. In 1917 there was no welfare and anyone who worked full time had the ability to purchase the bare essentials of life. So it's not a socialist scheme. It's the most conservative principle I can think of.

 

No, Seth. I have a mortgage, I itemize deductions, have two kids in county schools, my oldest son and I are in college on Stafford Loans and Pell and my husband makes almost 80k a year and my 10th grader and 7th grader qualify for free lunch. I assure you, at 80k a year for a family of five, we aren't even paying our own bill. Do you even know what it costs to educate one child for a year in county schools? Do you even know what healthcare premiums, deductibles, and copays are? I doubt you have any idea what pmi is, what standard vs. Itemized means, what Pell vs. Stafford is, what comprehensive vs. no fault is, what full life vs. term life is. But feel free to school me darlin'. The research will be very beneficial to you in the long haul.

 

That's a good point.

We do have a problem in US culture where everyone thinks they should get paid at least $100k a year even though they can't turn a computer on or change a light bulb.

 

I raised two kids and I am putting one through college now. Yeah, I know. But this is not what I'm really talking about. What I'm talking about is survival pay. Rent, not a mortgage. Public schools, not college tuition, etc. I'm not talking about 80k. But thanks for callin' me darlin'.

 

Well, kidos for you for putting one through college while talking about survival pay. If you can't get by with basics why are you paying college tuition when Stafford is there to take advantage of?

 

Maybe socialism is a myth too so long as Communism is one.

Here is my view on the living wage.

You lauded me for paying well to answer phones. I had multi reasons for that. Not due to some law.

I honestly believe in the human condition called liberty so much, I am hostile to so many regulations your head would spin.

I think a lot of ill things where the police end up arresting people has to do with socialism. In General, and please correct me if you wish, the police deal with the lower crust of society mostly. They do not find the rich beating strangers up nor robbing. Even when arrests are made of people who now have money, often they came up from poverty and took money then multiplied it, such as ponzi schemes.

Liberty to me means you own income, wealth and opportunity. For me to regulate you so you were constrained, goes against core principles of liberty and this country was founded on liberty.

If I did not give you your answer, at least I gave you mine. Happy to deal with more questions. Cool talking to you.

Let me sum this way. I do not believe a collective has the right to dictate this to any company, no matter the motive or purpose.

 

Would it be too off the rails if I were to suggest that the law of gravity affects a can of Coor's just as much as it does a human? I guess that sounds, "a little too off the rails to deserve a response."

 

Amy, it's not about me. I'm fine financially. I've written a lot on this thread. I know it has a lot of pages, but everything I think about the topic is in it.

Basically, I'm suggesting that people should be able to work for a living - a very modest, minimalist living - without taxpayers having to pay for their food and shelter and medical care. I'm not the one who needs survival pay. I'm the one who pays for things for others with my taxes.

 

What exactly should I stop consuming? Food? Shelter? Fuel? Insurance? The basics in life cost more in America than in Mexico and our wages have to reflect that.

 

What are you using to view this forum?

 

Ahh I see, what you want is for America to become a third world country. I'm kind of not into that.

 

SS recipients receive COLA increases.

Jobs increase and decrease on a daily basis. That 500K is 0.3% of the jobs. History says they will be replaced, and perhaps more jobs will happen as well.

Not what I mean at all.

 

No. Not at all. I want people to learn to live within their means. Yeah it sucks for a bit. But once people of little means change their lifestyle they find that they can better their situation with what they havent spent on frivolous things.

 

Do you earn a return on those investments, or interest? Where do you think that interest/return comes from?

Spending money does not create wealth, especially not on consumer goods.

 

When I invest in a CD what do you think happens to that money? When I invest in a company and take ownership of some of the capital of the company what do you think happens with that capital me and my fellow owners have invested in that company? Do you believe someone spending that money on a new video game adds more to the economy of the that money being invested in a business does more for the economy? Do you know what leveraging money/capital is?

 

Fine sentiment, I suppose, but it's off topic.

The issue here is on living wage. And, living wage does no assume someone is living a "lifestyle" that you describe.

 

Living wage isn't calculated to include investing in CDs.

It doesn't even include enough to buy health care coverage.

The relative benefits of investment options doesn't really pertain when spending ones entire income is required in order to live.