glassjester
Well-known member
You get enough people realizing that, and all of a sudden employers have to outbid each other if they want any employees at all.
Universal Minimum Income
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
You get enough people realizing that, and all of a sudden employers have to outbid each other if they want any employees at all.
glassjester
Well-known member
This creates an economic situation where employers are still dependent on employees, but employees are no longer dependent on employers. Why isn't that good?
You want to pay folks for doing nothing?
You won't stay in business for long.
glassjester
Well-known member
This already happens. He just wants to pay everyone the same amount for doing nothing.
whitestone
Well-known member
And in the end as if biblical,none buy nor sell unless,ect. and while most see some buying and selling the vast majority cannot understand why their economy crumbles,,it's the plan "crumble it",,,
GuySmiley
Well-known member
No he clarified that it would only be on income over $1M, so the first $1M would be at a lower rate. I'm showing you cant do that and pay for the program.
Trad was responding to the objection that it takes away incentive for people to take risks to make that much money.
Basically you need to tax an average of 77% on all income for everyone, using the nicest numbers possible to Trad, to pay for the program. EDIT: Not to pay for the program, but the new wage program and other government functions.
Why should anyone work at all if they are given "money for nothing and the chicks are free"?
And in school? Does everyone get an "A"?
Does everyone get a "Blue Ribbon"?
Is everyone in first place?
What about the Olympics?
Why train?
Good advice!:luigi:
That means a person making $1 million dollars would net $100k after taxes.
What would be your tax rate on a person who makes $100k be?
You are still making the same amount of money, it just comes from two different sources.
Why would anyone try to invent something that would make them a million dollars if they would only get to keep 10% of it?
PureX
Well-known member
I think this idea is on the right track, but is unnecessarily excessive.
Instead of giving everyone 24K, why not set that as a base economic necessity, and guarantee it to all citizens if needed. Then allow anyone who wants to work, and can, to earn up to 48K without paying income taxes. And then, beyond that amount, we would pay a graduated increasing income tax up to 98% on 10m+/year.
Then make health care and education free to all citizens.
This would:
1. guarantee everyone a survivable income.
a. any kid could afford to get advanced education.
b. retirees would be guaranteed a comfortable retirement
c. workers would have the power to refuse work, giving them power in the job market, again (raising wages and working conditions).
2. allow increasing income for increasing productivity.
a. preserving entrepreneurial drive.
b. greatly increasing individual and collective education, exploration, and inventiveness.
3. eliminates the hodgepodge of social welfare programs and the IRS by combining them in one system.
a. eliminates the need for complicated justification criteria for the poor.
b. can more easily be adjusted for exceptional circumstances if necessary.
4. eliminates the creation of an absurdly wealthy elite.
a. ending their ability to pervert the democratic process with their massive wealth.
b. spreading the wealth (possibilities/opportunities) out among the population.
c. maintaining a more fair and reasonable scale of economic compensation.
d. maintaining a more equitable and democratic economy and society.
Instead of giving everyone 24K, why not set that as a base economic necessity, and guarantee it to all citizens if needed. Then allow anyone who wants to work, and can, to earn up to 48K without paying income taxes. And then, beyond that amount, we would pay a graduated increasing income tax up to 98% on 10m+/year.
Then make health care and education free to all citizens.
This would:
1. guarantee everyone a survivable income.
a. any kid could afford to get advanced education.
b. retirees would be guaranteed a comfortable retirement
c. workers would have the power to refuse work, giving them power in the job market, again (raising wages and working conditions).
2. allow increasing income for increasing productivity.
a. preserving entrepreneurial drive.
b. greatly increasing individual and collective education, exploration, and inventiveness.
3. eliminates the hodgepodge of social welfare programs and the IRS by combining them in one system.
a. eliminates the need for complicated justification criteria for the poor.
b. can more easily be adjusted for exceptional circumstances if necessary.
4. eliminates the creation of an absurdly wealthy elite.
a. ending their ability to pervert the democratic process with their massive wealth.
b. spreading the wealth (possibilities/opportunities) out among the population.
c. maintaining a more fair and reasonable scale of economic compensation.
d. maintaining a more equitable and democratic economy and society.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the inner city school i used to teach in had a similar idea when faced with abysmal failure rates
no child could receive a grade of less than 50% on any assignment or test even if they didn't do it
guess what?
the students who weren't interested in learning still didn't do the work and still failed
glassjester
Well-known member
And did it cause the high-achievers to work less?
This is what opponents to the minimum income are claiming. That, among other problems, it would cause those who want to earn more than 24K, to suddenly stop trying.
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you think money is the only motivation that inventors have?
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you believe that everyone would be perfectly satisfied earning 24K?
When minimum wage began, did people suddenly stop trying to earn more? Why doesn't everyone just have minimum wage jobs now?
genuineoriginal
New member
One reason is that there were fewer minimum wage jobs available after the minimum wage was raised.
_____
Raising the Minimum Wage: The Effects on Employment, Businesses and Consumers
Increasing the minimum wage may seem like a tool to raise low-income workers out of poverty, but it inevitably hurts the very people policymakers intend to help.
When the government imposes a higher minimum wage, employers face higher labor costs and are forced to respond by decreasing other production expenses. As these employers cope with the increased costs of a mandated wage raise, they often respond by cutting the jobs available to less-experienced and less-educated employees. The result is that these individuals, who already have few employment options, find it more difficult to get a job.
_____
Raising the Minimum Wage: The Effects on Employment, Businesses and Consumers
Increasing the minimum wage may seem like a tool to raise low-income workers out of poverty, but it inevitably hurts the very people policymakers intend to help.
When the government imposes a higher minimum wage, employers face higher labor costs and are forced to respond by decreasing other production expenses. As these employers cope with the increased costs of a mandated wage raise, they often respond by cutting the jobs available to less-experienced and less-educated employees. The result is that these individuals, who already have few employment options, find it more difficult to get a job.
_____
What has been working according to our awful problem of the homeless (and which some programs claim an 80% success rate) is that housing should come first.I saw a while back, on Facebook, an article about an idea which is apparently fairly popular both among left-wingers and libertarians worldwide (Republicans probably aren't a big fan, but hey): a universal minimum income.
Basically, here's the idea: have the government pay everyone enough money so that they start off at an above-poverty income level.
I can't express just how much I love this idea, and just how much this would pretty much solve all kinds of social problems and political debates.
Pay everyone $24,000 of untaxable, no strings attached income and automatically adjust that amount every year based on inflation.
Abolish social security.
Abolish federal and state entitlements (except, perhaps, as an addition to the universal minimum income).
Abolish welfare.
Abolish foodstamps.
Abolish minimum wage laws.
You get the idea.
Combine this with a single payer health-care system, tuition free universities and extremely tight border controls? I can't even express in words just how supremely epic that would be.
All of a sudden, the need for unions just ends. There's no need for unions, for minimum wages or for all sorts of other government regulation about employment. All of a sudden, the employee doesn't need his employer. They can negotiate on a perfectly level playing field.
"You want me to work for you? Ok. Then treat me like a person, not like a number. Oh. You don't want to do that? That's fine. I don't need your job anyway.
Not to mention it would simplify things a lot government wise. No need for a dozen different government agencies.
Here, people will complain about the following:
1. It would decrease productivity and take away peoples' incentives to do meaningless, inhuman work.
2. It would be unfair because pay would no longer correspond to merit.
I answer as follows:
A. 1. is going to happen with technological increases anyway.
B. 1. If the job is meaningless and inhuman, then maybe it's not worth doing in the first place.
C. 1. There's only so many jobs anyway. What's the unemployment rate again?
D. 2. Money shouldn't be a standard of personal worth. It should be a mean of acquiring the necessities of a dignified and properly human life.
E. 2. It's not even true. I'm talking about a universal minimum income. Note the key word: "minimum."
There is no way that employment counseling, drug and alcohol problems and mental illness help can be successful without this vital first step.
The cost savings to the cities who have or support such programs have been simply phenomenal.
Regardless if I remind TOL readers about Jesus, the world situation or national politics, you should check my thinking, opinions and interpretations of these real-world news bits.
Don't take my word for anything. I am passing along information and you should make your own choice about how to respond it it.
I appreciate the health of diversity. The more opinions and views, the larger our choices become.
whitestone
Well-known member
Well,now that we have the wages part of the economy all ironed out we should address the cash flow/food cost portion of the mix. I think 12.00 a gallon milk,7.00 a gallon gas,15.00 hamburgers,and 6.00 loaves of bread should be enough to be able to pay a 24,000.00 a year employee and still stay in business. Maybe not but with leeway we can adjust it as we need.