• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Income Distribution

Lucky 1 said:
Its not about ability to pay....its about fairness....FAIR is where everybody pays the exact same rate.
Click to expand...


By definition, there is nothing fair about an unjust advantage. Your expectation that people pay the same rate when they don't have the income to do so is impossible. It's impracticable. How about you pay everybody the same wage/salary, to be what you believe, by Lucky 1 definition, to be "fair'?
 
bluesmoke said:
By definition, there is nothing fair about an unjust advantage. Your expectation that people pay the same rate when they don't have the income to do so is impossible. It's impracticable. How about you pay everybody the same wage/salary, to be what you believe, by Lucky 1 definition, to be "fair'?
Click to expand...


Nope....wages are determined by ability to perform a job and the value of that job performed.....Tax's rates should be flat across the board so everyone pays the same rate.....that's fair!!!
 
Mircea said:
Not relevant and incredibly disingenuous and deceptive.

Neither Amazon, Walmart, Target or others were paying the federal minimum wage nor the State minimum wage. They were paying market wages.

In the case of Walmart, workers start at $10.25-$10.50/hour in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area, because that is the market wage rate for the Cincinnati MSA.

Your commie cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all nonsense does not allow you to understand that all labor markets are different and that even the Cost-of-Living is different in all labor markets and there are 937+ labor markets in the US.

Also, Amazon said no such thing. If you create an account and search for jobs on their website, Amazon says they will pay "up to $15/hour" which is not the same thing as setting a starting wage of $15/hour for all warehouse workers.

In the Cincinnati MSA, Target starts at $8.50-$9.50/hour which is above both the State and federal minimum wage, and unless you suck, you get a $0.50/hour pay raise after 6 months.



That's in part because it cannot be shown the companies you named are actually paying those wages, and because it is possible that market rates have generated higher wages.
Click to expand...


You are the one being disingenuous, dishonest and deceptive.

You laid-out detail of what the companies in question are paying vs the $15 I said they were moving to. The you fail to grasp the distinction and instead go on a tirade of false allegation against me. Totally uncalled for.

Nonetheless, here is proof of Amazon moving to $15/hr MW:

www.aboutamazon.com

Amazon Raises Minimum Wage to $15 for All U.S. Employees

New $15 minimum wage is effective beginning this November 1
www.aboutamazon.com www.aboutamazon.com

You are wholly discredited.
 
Lucky 1 said:
Nope....wages are determined by ability to perform a job and the value of that job performed.....Tax's rates should be flat across the board so everyone pays the same rate.....that's fair!!!
Click to expand...


You don't know the definition of "fair". Nor do you know that a flat tax at a rate that will take in at least the same revenue as the current tax plan does would be unbearable on the lower incomes. They don't have the income to pay the tax after living expenses. It's impracticable. There's no sense in debating someone who is being nonsensical. For the last time, see you on another thread.
 
NatMorton said:
Things would be so much better if we were all equally poor.
Click to expand...
That's true. It would also mean that the poorest of us would be substantially better off than they are today.
 
mrjurrs said:
That's true. It would also mean that the poorest of us would be substantially better off than they are today.
Click to expand...


If you take "equally poor" to mean equal distribution of wealth, then nobody would be poor nor "poorest".
 
bluesmoke said:
Nonetheless, here is proof of Amazon moving to $15/hr MW:
Click to expand...

That is one company on your list. Amazon is certainly free to do that if it wants, but aside from that, it means nothing.
 
We could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.

Economics matters. Solving simple poverty in that market friendly manner can generate a multiplier of two, which means we can just print the money.
 
danielpalos said:
We could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.

Economics matters. Solving simple poverty in that market friendly manner can generate a multiplier of two, which means we can just print the money.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on how you think that clause can be used to alleviate poverty?
 
danielpalos said:
With our at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States regarding unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...
I think I'll need a translation there. Who, precisely, does what, precisely, to alleviate poverty under that clause of the Constitution?
 
NatMorton said:
I think I'll need a translation there. Who, precisely, does what, precisely, to alleviate poverty under that clause of the Constitution?
Click to expand...
It means (Labor) being able to obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. A simplification of procedure for employers and the State.
 
bluesmoke said:
You don't know the definition of "fair". Nor do you know that a flat tax at a rate that will take in at least the same revenue as the current tax plan does would be unbearable on the lower incomes. They don't have the income to pay the tax after living expenses. It's impracticable. There's no sense in debating someone who is being nonsensical. For the last time, see you on another thread.
Click to expand...


LOL!......... That's the whole point! That the government should take in less than it does now.

We as a country...ALL of us are over-taxed and have been for generations now.

The government needs to get back to its constitutional mandates of defending the shores, regulating trade and delivering the mail....and not much else......As in get the hell out of our wallets, out of our business and out of our lives.
 
NatMorton said:
How does being on public charity raise someone out of poverty?
Click to expand...
It isn't public charity but a public policy meant to solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

We should have no homelessness or poverty in our first world economy.
 
danielpalos said:
It isn't public charity but a public policy meant to solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

We should have no homelessness or poverty in our first world economy.
Click to expand...
Ah, no. You may choose not to call it public charity, but it most certainly is. Those payments don't fall from the sky. Other people had to get up, get dressed, go to work, and earn that money. A portion of that money is taken from the earner's paycheck and paid to someone who, for whatever reason, is not able to financially support themselves. That is charity.

By and large, we have very few homeless who choose not to be so. In fact, there are at least 15 or 20 states that have a mix of federal and state charitable income programs that, in total, equate to an income well above the magic $15/hour "living wage." That money is yours even if you choose not to perform a single hour's work.

The homeless we see are, by and large, those with either mental health or substance abuse problems. In short, these are people who are not in their right minds. That is a very different problem, and one charity will not solve.
 
NatMorton said:
Ah, no. You may choose not to call it public charity, but it most certainly is. Those payments don't fall from the sky. Other people had to get up, get dressed, go to work, and earn that money. A portion of that money is taken from the earner's paycheck and paid to someone who, for whatever reason, is not able to financially support themselves. That is charity.

By and large, we have very few homeless who choose not to be so. In fact, there are at least 15 or 20 states that have a mix of federal and state charitable income programs that, in total, equate to an income well above the magic $15/hour "living wage." That money is yours even if you choose not to perform a single hour's work.

The homeless we see are, by and large, those with either mental health or substance abuse problems. In short, these are people who are not in their right minds. That is a very different problem, and one charity will not solve.
Click to expand...
Employment is at the will of either party. You are not forced to work in an at-will employment State. Thus, it cannot be charity when it is already a civil entitlement.
 
danielpalos said:
Employment is at the will of either party. You are not forced to work in an at-will employment State. Thus, it cannot be charity when it is already a civil entitlement.
Click to expand...
Your logic does not hold. I may be an employee at will, or not. I may collect financial subsidies from the government, or not. The former has no bearing on the latter. Collectively, we choose to dedicate a large percentage of our federal and state tax revenue to public charity because we prefer not to see people starving in the streets. That we make that choice doesn't make it any less charitable.

BTW, if you want to quibble about the term "charity," one might be able to say it's something else since, for some, the contributions are not voluntary, but in this context I have been using the word "charity" to mean "public charity," and that very much is a choice.
 
NatMorton said:
Your logic does not hold. I may be an employee at will, or not. I may collect financial subsidies from the government, or not. The former has no bearing on the latter. Collectively, we choose to dedicate a large percentage of our federal and state tax revenue to public charity because we prefer not to see people starving in the streets. That we make that choice doesn't make it any less charitable.

BTW, if you want to quibble about the term "charity," one might be able to say it's something else since, for some, the contributions are not voluntary, but in this context I have been using the word "charity" to mean "public charity," and that very much is a choice.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe what you do? Are you in the US?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom