|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2015 04:55 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Its easy to say minimum wage wont close the gap between rich and poor when that is not even the point of it.
I think he was talking about supplemental government aid (Earned Inome Tax Credit) as described in the article I posted, but that too I guess. :D Additionally, I would say neither increasing EITC nor raising minimum wage would affect the middle class much. Not really the point I don't think.
Why is Earned Income Tax Credit better than an incremental tax? If you earn $5k a year you don't pay taxes. You earn $15k you pax X percentage on amount over 5k, you earn $50k another % on the amount over 15k and so on that then caps at around 70%-90% on the higher tiers of money earned. Could keep it to 4 levels I think. 1 for nothing, 1 for low taxes, 1 for above average income level, one for top income. Only the difference between levels has the higher percentage so you never run into the situation of making less after taxes when climbing up a tier.
Paying money back unless the person paid too much seems a strange solution to me.
|
On May 24 2015 05:29 Yurie wrote:
Why is Earned Income Tax Credit better than an incremental tax? If you earn $5k a year you don't pay taxes. You earn $15k you pax X percentage on amount over 5k, you earn $50k another % on the amount over 15k and so on that then caps at around 70%-90% on the higher tiers of money earned. Could keep it to 4 levels I think. 1 for nothing, 1 for low taxes, 1 for above average income level, one for top income. Only the difference between levels has the higher percentage so you never run into the situation of making less after taxes when climbing up a tier.
Paying money back unless the person paid too much seems a strange solution to me.
Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought that it was basically an incremental tax using the EITC?
“The better answer,” he said, is an expansion of the earned income tax credit, a federal tax credit targeted at working class Americans which gives them a credit starting with the first dollar they earn and rises until it hits a ceiling, then phases out from there.
|
On May 24 2015 05:03 puerk wrote:
Where does this fixation on opportunity come from? Having a permanent underclass with the "chance" for a miniscule minority of it to climb out of it (especially if you correct social mobility stats for heavily scewing things like part time work during university education makes it look like some harvard graduates are rags to riches stories), is for me not an equitable society. Lotteries are not nice things because the expectation value of playing is highly negative, just because there is an opportunity for everyone, and that is even equal, does not make it a good system with a good outcome.
The same way the expectation value for life that many people face is to low for me.
Because the 'American dream' is hammered into the skull of every American from birth. Even tho social mobility is pretty low.
|
Just to clarify, when I say opportunity, I am talking about making sure small businesses aren't slammed with heavy burdens such as health care or high minimum wage mandates. Or decent public schools that allow my kids to have a fair shot at something. etc
Wasn't talking about Randian American Exceptionalism, rags-to-riches bootstrap nonsense. :D
|
On May 24 2015 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 05:03 puerk wrote:
Where does this fixation on opportunity come from? Having a permanent underclass with the "chance" for a miniscule minority of it to climb out of it (especially if you correct social mobility stats for heavily scewing things like part time work during university education makes it look like some harvard graduates are rags to riches stories), is for me not an equitable society. Lotteries are not nice things because the expectation value of playing is highly negative, just because there is an opportunity for everyone, and that is even equal, does not make it a good system with a good outcome.
The same way the expectation value for life that many people face is to low for me. Because the 'American dream' is hammered into the skull of every American from birth. Even tho social mobility is pretty low.
That's the modern liberal's ideology: the American Dream is quaint, damaging, hilariously out of touch with the modern world. This accomplishes two things. First, when the unintended consequences of liberal policies hurt the poor struggling out of poverty, it's great because you already believe it was a foolish errand to begin with. Second, moving from the assumption that lower classes are fated to stay low, liberals are well positioned to advocate unending redistribution policies that reap them political power and fame.
You want an equitable society? Stop pounding defeatist mentality into every young impoverished man and woman's skull from your intellectual ivory tower. Furthermore stop advocating policies that punish those lifting themselves and their families out of poverty.
|
Your policy sounds like telling people they're fucked and shouldn't even try.
+ Show Spoiler +rereading this it came out harsher than intended. I'm going to leave it to encourage more discussion though.
|
On May 24 2015 05:29 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 04:55 screamingpalm wrote:On May 24 2015 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Its easy to say minimum wage wont close the gap between rich and poor when that is not even the point of it.
I think he was talking about supplemental government aid (Earned Inome Tax Credit) as described in the article I posted, but that too I guess. :D Additionally, I would say neither increasing EITC nor raising minimum wage would affect the middle class much. Not really the point I don't think. Why is Earned Income Tax Credit better than an incremental tax? If you earn $5k a year you don't pay taxes. You earn $15k you pax X percentage on amount over 5k, you earn $50k another % on the amount over 15k and so on that then caps at around 70%-90% on the higher tiers of money earned. Could keep it to 4 levels I think. 1 for nothing, 1 for low taxes, 1 for above average income level, one for top income. Only the difference between levels has the higher percentage so you never run into the situation of making less after taxes when climbing up a tier. Paying money back unless the person paid too much seems a strange solution to me.
Indeed, giving a big bonus back to someone seems like a less effective way to improve someone's life overall.
|
On May 24 2015 07:10 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 05:29 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2015 04:55 screamingpalm wrote:On May 24 2015 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Its easy to say minimum wage wont close the gap between rich and poor when that is not even the point of it.
I think he was talking about supplemental government aid (Earned Inome Tax Credit) as described in the article I posted, but that too I guess. :D Additionally, I would say neither increasing EITC nor raising minimum wage would affect the middle class much. Not really the point I don't think. Why is Earned Income Tax Credit better than an incremental tax? If you earn $5k a year you don't pay taxes. You earn $15k you pax X percentage on amount over 5k, you earn $50k another % on the amount over 15k and so on that then caps at around 70%-90% on the higher tiers of money earned. Could keep it to 4 levels I think. 1 for nothing, 1 for low taxes, 1 for above average income level, one for top income. Only the difference between levels has the higher percentage so you never run into the situation of making less after taxes when climbing up a tier. Paying money back unless the person paid too much seems a strange solution to me. Indeed, giving a big bonus back to someone seems like a less effective way to improve someone's life overall.
You guys have lost me. The way I understand it, this would be an expansion of the EITC. So the incentive is to reward working families and shift burden away from small businesses which would be hit by a minimum wage mandate. It's basically the same thing except done through a tax credit- just a different form of implementation. Someone making current minimum wage would receive the difference through EITC instead of through their employer. Not sure what you mean by the example of someone making $5k and not paying taxes? etc
|
On May 24 2015 05:57 screamingpalm wrote:
Just to clarify, when I say opportunity, I am talking about making sure small businesses aren't slammed with heavy burdens such as health care or high minimum wage mandates. Or decent public schools that allow my kids to have a fair shot at something. etc
Wasn't talking about Randian American Exceptionalism, rags-to-riches bootstrap nonsense. :D
Sorry i didnt mean to imply that, luckily the poster right below you is pushing that randian american exceptionalism rags to riches bootstrap nonsense to provide adequate comparison.
|
On May 24 2015 07:30 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 07:10 Livelovedie wrote:On May 24 2015 05:29 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2015 04:55 screamingpalm wrote:On May 24 2015 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Its easy to say minimum wage wont close the gap between rich and poor when that is not even the point of it.
I think he was talking about supplemental government aid (Earned Inome Tax Credit) as described in the article I posted, but that too I guess. :D Additionally, I would say neither increasing EITC nor raising minimum wage would affect the middle class much. Not really the point I don't think. Why is Earned Income Tax Credit better than an incremental tax? If you earn $5k a year you don't pay taxes. You earn $15k you pax X percentage on amount over 5k, you earn $50k another % on the amount over 15k and so on that then caps at around 70%-90% on the higher tiers of money earned. Could keep it to 4 levels I think. 1 for nothing, 1 for low taxes, 1 for above average income level, one for top income. Only the difference between levels has the higher percentage so you never run into the situation of making less after taxes when climbing up a tier. Paying money back unless the person paid too much seems a strange solution to me. Indeed, giving a big bonus back to someone seems like a less effective way to improve someone's life overall. You guys have lost me. The way I understand it, this would be an expansion of the EITC. So the incentive is to reward working families and shift burden away from small businesses which would be hit by a minimum wage mandate. It's basically the same thing except done through a tax credit- just a different form of implementation. Someone making current minimum wage would receive the difference through EITC instead of through their employer. Not sure what you mean by the example of someone making $5k and not paying taxes? etc
Why do you think minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large businesses? Last I checked nearly every massive corporation paid minimum wage and was quite vocal about how much labour costs them. All this program will do is allow big businesses to take advantage of a minimum wage that will inevitably stagnant, causing an even larger burden on the system over time.
Who would suffer from this "incentive" the most is up for debate, but since the middle class is historical hurt by taxes most, it stands to reason they would. This plan wouldn't help fix the gap, it'd quicken it. All you're really doing is setting the standard to what the lower end of the spectrum will look like.
|
On May 24 2015 06:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2015 05:03 puerk wrote:
Where does this fixation on opportunity come from? Having a permanent underclass with the "chance" for a miniscule minority of it to climb out of it (especially if you correct social mobility stats for heavily scewing things like part time work during university education makes it look like some harvard graduates are rags to riches stories), is for me not an equitable society. Lotteries are not nice things because the expectation value of playing is highly negative, just because there is an opportunity for everyone, and that is even equal, does not make it a good system with a good outcome.
The same way the expectation value for life that many people face is to low for me. Because the 'American dream' is hammered into the skull of every American from birth. Even tho social mobility is pretty low. That's the modern liberal's ideology: the American Dream is quaint, damaging, hilariously out of touch with the modern world. This accomplishes two things. First, when the unintended consequences of liberal policies hurt the poor struggling out of poverty, it's great because you already believe it was a foolish errand to begin with. Second, moving from the assumption that lower classes are fated to stay low, liberals are well positioned to advocate unending redistribution policies that reap them political power and fame. You want an equitable society? Stop pounding defeatist mentality into every young impoverished man and woman's skull from your intellectual ivory tower. Furthermore stop advocating policies that punish those lifting themselves and their families out of poverty.
Except in basically every other Western developed country with better social safety nets than the US (with the exception of England, which has a generally more rigid class structure) social mobility is higher.
Go figure.
|
2 things about the EITC
Firstly it seems there are problems with people even knowing it exists, numbers like between 15 and 25% of eligible families not making use of it. Expanding a system that a significant portion doesn't even use seems like it has diminished effect. Plus since it is something you have to ask back through your taxes and my (possibly unjust) view is that the poor tend not to be great at using all the tax tricks to keep more money for themselves.
Secondly, unless I am mistaken expanding the EITC would only cost the government money, it would do nothing about companies pushing for lower wages in markets with enough unemployment and would mean that society is still subsiding companies who do not pay their employees enough to live off.
|
On May 24 2015 08:51 killa_robot wrote:
Why do you think minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large businesses? Last I checked nearly every massive corporation paid minimum wage and was quite vocal about how much labour costs them. All this program will do is allow big businesses to take advantage of a minimum wage that will inevitably stagnant, causing an even larger burden on the system over time.
Who would suffer from this "incentive" the most is up for debate, but since the middle class is historical hurt by taxes most, it stands to reason they would. This plan wouldn't help fix the gap, it'd quicken it. All you're really doing is setting the standard to what the lower end of the spectrum will look like.
Well, I would assume that small businesses would have a much smaller profit margin. You can't take action and legislate against what Walmart does to their employees and apply it to everyone else lol. That's completely unfair. What do you consider would cost more to the taxpayer between high minimum wage mandates that force small businesses to shut down and increase unemployment or expanding the EITC? Yes, the middle class gets hit with the taxes, but that's what we should be complaining about, not the actual help aimed at reducing poverty.
E: Also consider that either increasing min wage- or expanding EITC in this way will also serve to reduce other safety net programs. Food stamps, etc. So I don't think the tax hit on the middle class will be much, but just speculation. Honestly, it probably amounts to little more than six one, half dozen the other.
|
I'd rather minimum wage wasn't set to some specific value by statute, that seems silly.
It should be set to automatically scale based on cost of living; with occasional adjustment to account for flaws that will inevitably exist in the cost of living formula.
|
On May 24 2015 09:19 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 08:51 killa_robot wrote:
Why do you think minimum wage hurts small businesses more than large businesses? Last I checked nearly every massive corporation paid minimum wage and was quite vocal about how much labour costs them. All this program will do is allow big businesses to take advantage of a minimum wage that will inevitably stagnant, causing an even larger burden on the system over time.
Who would suffer from this "incentive" the most is up for debate, but since the middle class is historical hurt by taxes most, it stands to reason they would. This plan wouldn't help fix the gap, it'd quicken it. All you're really doing is setting the standard to what the lower end of the spectrum will look like. Well, I would assume that small businesses would have a much smaller profit margin. You can't take action and legislate against what Walmart does to their employees and apply it to everyone else lol. That's completely unfair. What do you consider would cost more to the taxpayer between high minimum wage mandates that force small businesses to shut down and increase unemployment or expanding the EITC? Yes, the middle class gets hit with the taxes, but that's what we should be complaining about, not the actual help aimed at reducing poverty.
Profit margins are all almost entirely determined by the sector of business you are in. Restaurants, a common small business, have low margins, but so do oil companies and supermarkets. Places like Apple have good margins, and small businesses, like app developers, also can. The problem with minimum wage is not small vs. large businesses its that it distorts business models. The way it affects small businesses is it can prevent entry into the marketplace if a person has the choice, initially, between low skilled labor and automation, because automation often has high up-front capital costs, which an entry-level businessman often cannot afford, or get the financing for.
|
This minimum wage discussion is complete nonsense. Preponderance of the evidence suggests no effect.
|
Thanks... sorry I keep using small business, but I think we can agree that a one size fits all approach isn't very wise?
|
On May 24 2015 10:27 IgnE wrote:
This minimum wage discussion is complete nonsense. Preponderance of the evidence suggests no effect.
The only relevant number is the DQ.
The Demagoguery Quotient.
|
Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all" 
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
|
If you read the post, many times the entry starts at low wages, but then the company can evolve to an automation plus skilled maintenance model, like modern car manufactures. Plus I generally prefer people being productive, over them not being productive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
