Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
An increase from $10 an hour to $15 an hour, in your estimate, was a good increase because it's a 50% increase.
I showed you that the percentage of increase is irrelevant.
"Living wage" sounds good, Glen, but in reality, you really can't define it, and apply it.
True. The only reason I was leaving out the number of dependents is to simplify things - that would open up a whole new can of worms...and I ain't enough of a fisherman to have any use for all those worms.
Again, you're essentially saying that a difference in molehills makes the difference in mountains irrelevant. And I never claimed to define a living wage - I'm not an economist. But I do know that such can be done - just because America hasn't done something before doesn't mean that it can't be done or shouldn't be done.
The "living wage", as opposed to a minimum wage, is a can of worms anyway. Its biggest problem is that a "living wage" violates the equal pay for equal work idea. If an employer has two qualified applicants (for a single position) but must pay one more then who would be more likely to get the job?
The "living wage", as opposed to a minimum wage, is a can of worms anyway. Its biggest problem is that a "living wage" violates the equal pay for equal work idea. If an employer has two qualified applicants (for a single position) but must pay one more then who would be more likely to get the job?
Well, Glen, you posted more than once that people should be paid a "living wage". If you don't know in your mind what exactly it is, how can you ask for it?
Haha. Sounds familiar...
We do need taxes for infrastructure, defense, and other public market failures. They just don't have to be near what they are now.
Roads and other PUBLIC GOODS account for about 7% of Federal Government spending.
Earlier in the conversation I pointed out that IMO a living wage should be defined as the amount it takes to feed, clothe, and shelter four people - an adult couple with two children. One could say that this is in effect a minimum wage that would be set for local conditions. This would not violate 'equal pay for equal work'.
I think my oldest son needs to lose weight to decrease his risk from diabetes, but since I don't know the best way for him to do so due to his history with rheumatic fever, does that mean that I shouldn't say he should lose weight?
Just because we can't answer specific details about what we think that a thing needs to be done, does not negate our moral right - and often, our duty - to say that thing needs to be done.
Raising the minimum wage to about $11.50/hour might accomplish that, yielding 100% of the federal poverty level for four people (with one woirking full-time at that rate) but likely at the cost of many jobs.
Wow. Talk about a...I don't even know what to call that first sentence.
You have a right to chant for a "living wage". And I have a right to call you out for chanting about something that you don't even know what you're chanting about.
Great - more "you didn't create that, I did" Obama blowjob talk.
Mediocre people have that mentality.
If there is some obvious reason why I should change my mind, feel free to mention it.
You shouldn't. Socialists and statists like yourself recognize their own inadequacies, so this mentality creates a de facto excuse.
Tah-dah! Now it's not your fault.
Individual tax rates? Or as a percentage of total taxes they pay?
You don't know me, so there's no way to know if your projections of me fit the truth.
Regardless, the matter seems straightforward. Opportunity only exists because of the effort that goes into securing it through the implementation of government and the law.
The more dependent you are on opportunity, the greater your obligation to protect it.
Why should a man who exists in the margins of society -- who stands to lose nothing if it fails, since he lives by the law of nature anyway -- be expected to contribute more than someone who depends on an intricate web of treaties, courts, and public resources in order to meet their personal economic goals?
Large corporations devour the energies and attentions of the courts of the United States of America far more than the common man. They receive more recognition from congressmen, senators, and presidents.
Haha. Sounds familiar...
We do need taxes for infrastructure, defense, and other public market failures. They just don't have to be near what they are now.
Yeah yeah, I get it. Government determines winners and losers. Blah blah blah.
It's a defeatist attitude. Anyone who is successful by going out and staking his claim would find your opinion deplorable. However, it's a mantra for the unskilled, uneducated, and unremarkable because it creates a situation where failure is shirked.
Why do those things need to be force monopolized and funded through extortion?
It doesn't matter whether I am a defeatist or an optimist. In all other economic arrangements, people pay more based on their reliance on a good or service.
If rich people depend on ordered society, law, and government more than the common man, then they should pay more in taxes than the common man.
That's how value-for-dollar arrangements work.
what does that have to do with tax rates
those poor, poor, rich people
I am poor as s***. Let them rich people know I will buy them a loaf of bread if they ever get hungry. They have it pretty tough sometime but somehow they do manage to get by. I think it is their business savvy that allows them to stretch their meager existence in order to survive.
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?