keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
What is "adequate"? Remember also that each employee is an investment. The employer is counting on getting a certain amount of output from the employee who is being paid right away. Good workers are worth it, bad workers are not. If a position is low-qualification and high-turnover, it doesn't make sense to throw more money at it than necessary to keep up that part of your business. The bad workers will get themselves fired in a few months anyway.
.....
Even there if the low-qualification high-turnover positions are not the whole of the company such an employee can rise at least a little.
Although individual choice will affect one person's standing, it is more of a result of government and society decisions and external events. A historical example is the taxation policy of the Byzantine Empire was to tax the land. If you were a small farmer, you might not be able to afford the tax yourself, especially if your crops had been destroyed in Arab raids. You might then sell your land to the local lord so that he would have to pay the tax and send soldiers to defend it. You would still be farming but just not have the financial responsibility of the land. We still have these kinds of rules where one type of income, say your paycheck, is taxed at one rate but dividends are taxed at another. The idea is to encourage investment but the long-term effect is that those who can live off of dividends (i.e. high-wealth) are taxed at a lower rate than the schlep who has to work for a living.
Not quite true because the hidden tax of inflation takes away from the person with investments. One buys a stock, holds it for 10 years and then sells it at a 'profit' which is then taxed. But the profit is all paper. It may be real or it may in fact be a loss, e.g. the sale price will buy less than the original purchase price would have.
It sucks to be taxed on gains that in fact did not mathc inflation.
Upvote
0