Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Australia pays $16/hour as the minimum wage rate and inflation here has not sky rocketed. Your post's prediction of sky rocketing inflation is not supported by the facts.No. It's going to cause inflation to skyrocket. ...
Here is where $15/Hour is headed. No vacation time needed, no healthcare insurance, no workman's compensation costs, never calls in sick or hung over, and never has an attitude problem.
View attachment 158828
Australia pays $16/hour as the minimum wage rate and inflation here has not sky rocketed. Your post's prediction of sky rocketing inflation is not supported by the facts.
Well, this thread is about $15/hour in Los Angeles. That's not nation wide as far as I can tell.But it's also a fact that Australia is much different than America. I hope I'm wrong if the min wage does get raised. But I personally am skeptical and I see it creating more problems than it solves right now. Other measures need to be taken to fix some of the things wrong here.
Australia pays $16/hour as the minimum wage rate and inflation here has not sky rocketed. Your post's prediction of sky rocketing inflation is not supported by the facts.
Inflation is a part of the weird ideas we have as a culture about economic growth. For example, if your nation has inflation at 2% and GDP growth at 3.5% the press tells us that we're growing at 3.5% when in reality our economic growth can be no higher than 3.5-2% = 1.5% but of course 1.5% as headline growth looks bad and hence is not reported. There are many deceptions in the way the economy is promoted by statistics. And the effect of the claims made is this; the disparity between the top 10% and the other 90% grows larger and larger both in monitory terms ($ value) and in proportions of the economy 'owned' by each group (% value of the economy).It's not as if a minimum wage hike in any area really affects overall inflation, perhaps allocation of labor, but not overall inflation. However, even if this argument did have merit if one is going to try to make it simply by comparing $ amounts, it's necessary to take into consideration what that $ buys for a working comparison.
To this end, you might compare what a Big Mac costs in Australia compared to the USA. Or a pack of Marlboro reds. Or any other handful of consumables, even bigger ticket items like automobiles. Then it might be close to a valid point, assuming overall inflation is caused by price hikes, which it isn't.
The bottom 50% may not pay federal income taxes but they surely pay sales taxes and land taxes if they own a property and if they don't then they pay land taxes through rent and they pay taxes on numerous other services, such as road tolls, license fees, government fees for school books and other necessary school supplies. It is only those who must survive on charity and welfare who would be free from school costs. So the idea that the bottom 50% pay no taxes is untrue. It is one of the many untruths told in debates about taxation and minimum wage rates.
I'm sorry but while I believe those making millions and billions of dollars should NOT have loop holes to keep them from paying taxes, and while I do not agree to hand outs in the form of bail outs for Wall Street, but I also don't believe in taxing the lowest wage earners in this country. I come from a wealthy family and while my dad enjoyed his tax breaks he never once thought the poorer people should have to pay them. Some things I am just glad I take after him.
Keep in mind my statement was the bottom 50% pay no taxes on earned income not that the bottom 50% pay no taxes at all. We all pay taxes to some degree or another. We often pay too much in taxes. Like or not the biggest loop hole in earned income taxes benefits to bottom 50% of earners. This is a fact that can't be ignored. Then the upper 50% pays 100% of the taxes it's has a different name, wealth transfer.
I really can't say either for sure either, maybe not have any domestic income, or simply know exactly what you need to do to get every penny back you can. I can say is that they can afford to pay lawyers whose entire job is to figure this out.I'm not certain what loopholes are being used to allow individuals "making millions and billions" to avoid paying taxes.
If you truly believe that the only way to keep people employed is to pay them less than is needed to live then how far will such logic go? Shall slavery be reintroduced so that slaves can be fed by their masters and housed by them but receive no pay? That would surely be cheaper than $15/hour in Los Angeles Ca today. But when it comes down to it machines may be cheaper still and then even slavery would not keep people in employment. So this argument that one needs to keep the minimum wage rate down in order the preserve employment is hollow. It gives the semblance of reason but entirely lacks its substance.
Paying people a living wage is a moral duty that cannot be shirked on the excuse that by paying less one keeps the poor in work. That's a sham that even the poor see through and since the poor and middle classes outnumber ten to one the wealthy who advance such arguments one can only expect social unrest and troubled times if it is perused for much longer.
That's really not true at all. It's safe to assume that since the median income is $51,000 in the U.S. that half the U.S. population makes less than 51,000. Depending on various factors, the people right in this middle are going to be in 15% or 25% tax bracket, but even people at the 10% rate, still pay the 10% of their income on taxes. What actually likely happens is since the lower income you have, the less you pay in taxes, therefore the greater chance is that your refund will either match or exceed the amount you paid.
I really can't say either for sure either, maybe not have any domestic income, or simply know exactly what you need to do to get every penny back you can. I can say is that they can afford to pay lawyers whose entire job is to figure this out.
Don't forget to take into account the EIC, standard deductions, child tax credit, and other items that directly reduce or eliminate one's taxes.
Let me first establish that my posting stands on it's own without your efforts to embellishment. You ask how far down should we go, why not ask how far up we should go? Equating lowering wage to slavery makes as much sense as raising the minimum wage to what Warren Buffet makes to solve poverty. Doubling the minimum wage across the board will create inflated pricing to be born by all, including those whose pay check didn't double.
You claim there is a "moral duty" to pay a living wage. Who determines where that minimum wage is set? How was the proposed $15/hour determined? Raising the minimum wage means the new minimum wage becomes unlivable due to the increase costs of good and services. It becomes an economic diminishing return. Should the minimum wage be adjusted to compensate for inflation? My answer is yes.
As a side note, Seattle recently raised the minimum wage to 15/ hour and the cost of everything jumped by 20%. Restaurant patrons have stopped tipping wait staff. As a result the average $27/hour they used to earn dropped to $15/hour.
Businesses do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to make a profit. Most businesses in the US are small businesses with often thin profit margins. Raising the minimum wage will force the business owner to make a choice between raising prices on goods and services to finding ways to reduce costs. For most businesses payroll costs are the number one operating costs.
The reality (substance) will be those who loose their jobs after their jobs are automated. Higher unemployment and inflation is the ignition point for civil unrest. Look at what's happening in Venezuela.
You do understand that's exactly my point, right? When you are on the lower brackets, the easier it is for these things to amount to breaking even (get back exactly what you already paid) or getting more back than you actually paid. Everyone pays taxes, it's automatically deducted from your income.
Businesses don't exist to make a profit, they exist to provide a good or service. Business have to make a profit, but they don't exist for that sole purpose. Perhaps the business was started for that purpose, but they don't provide anything valuable to anyone else, it's going to fail. Unless you have to provide for someone who cannot make income, minimum wage is technically a livable wage, if you consider livable (without any subsidies) to be an apartment, food, water and heat, and maybe bus fare to get to work. As I said before, unless everyone makes the same, relative poverty is always going to exist, that's just how numbers work, but that doesn't give us an excuse to not try to improve everyone's standard of living. The American mentality of, to quote Sen. Marco Rubio "We are a nation of haves and soon to haves, of people who made it and people who will make it" is a great sounding idea, but it doesn't work because not everyone can or is going to make it. Yet, we continue to believe that anyone and everyone can make it even though that's not economically, or mathematically possible.Personally, I think it's rooted in our revolutionary days when we revolted against a heavily classed society. We don't want to really admit that we've ended up in the same place as every other society ever, an upper and lower class. While we may admit that yeah, we technically have it, it's not really a permanent situation. Sure, class movement exist, but it's not as common as we want to believe it is. Here's an illustration to show how it works, imagine you have a classroom full of students, and you place the trash can in front of the room. You ask everyone to crumple up a sheet of paper, and say "if you make it in, you are in the upper class, and you cannot move from where you are right now". Most of those at front will make it, but only a few in the back will.
$15/hour is too high, for example, the UK's is €8.62 ($9.49), Germany has €9.21/hr, ($10.13). We have one of the lowest minimum wages in the developed world, but we also have one of the lowest income tax rates among other advanced economies. This goes back to the idea of our sense of self-reliance and the idea that we can make it with no ones, inherently distrustful of the government, and the only advanced economy that really thinks like that. We have one of the worst rates of wealth inequality in the world, and I can't help but wonder if it's our optimistic, self-reliant, distrustful mindset. Those economies that do help it's poor through higher taxes of the wealthy, free healthcare and education, etc. "socialist" (gasp) policies don't have nearly the wealth inequality that we do. I've been to Europe, people are still seem just as happy, if not more happy than here. We don't just need a higher minimum wage, we need better economic ideas.
If things are more equal in other countries with more socialistic policies, why are their citizens seeking to come to American for the opportunity? I stated in another post in this chain that I was born into a poor family. The motivation to improve my station in life was to see the opportunities and potential around me and the fact that I wasn't stuck in my particular social class. Government charity tends to make people unmotivated. I also tend to think another de-motivator is high taxes. Why work hard to get ahead if it's going to be taxed away?
One question that needs to be asked; How was the $15/hour minimum wage established as a livable wage? No one seems to be able to provide an answer based on hard facts.
Your trash can example is interesting, I'll offer an alternative on this theme. If the students were arranged in a circle around the trash can (equal opportunity) then each student would have the same opportunity. Those who failed would need to try again (practice, train, and work at) to get it in the bucket. Some students won't reach the bucket due to disability, however most who fail will give up due to a lack of motivation. It's my opinion that disabled students should be given assistance to reach their maximum potential. Not much can be done about motivation as this comes from within.
The American dream is based upon equal opportunity not equal results.
Depends on where you are. In my state the lowest earners get tax credit toward property taxes...even if you rent. So they pay sales tax and get earned income credit if they work (this is money back after they don't have to pay any federal taxes). So you pay sales tax on products (not food) and licensing taxes if you drive....and reduced taxes on property... It is still tax but significantly less than the rest of the tax payers.The bottom 50% may not pay federal income taxes but they surely pay sales taxes and land taxes if they own a property and if they don't then they pay land taxes through rent and they pay taxes on numerous other services, such as road tolls, license fees, government fees for school books and other necessary school supplies. It is only those who must survive on charity and welfare who would be free from school costs. So the idea that the bottom 50% pay no taxes is untrue. It is one of the many untruths told in debates about taxation and minimum wage rates.
I lived in California in the bay area and in Los Angeles. Sales tax applied to various sorts of food items, to clothing, footwear, McDonalds fast foods, tacos, and probably all other fast foods.Depends on where you are. In my state the lowest earners get tax credit toward property taxes...even if you rent. So they pay sales tax and get earned income credit if they work (this is money back after they don't have to pay any federal taxes). So you pay sales tax on products (not food) and licensing taxes if you drive....and reduced taxes on property... It is still tax but significantly less than the rest of the tax payers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?