Living Wage?

[5-90]

I think this is partially flawed. Those that are only making minimum wage don't pay taxes, and generally are refunded more money that what is taken out for taxes to begin with. So in essences our goverment subsidizes lower working wages for larger corporations, where if a higher 'living' wage was instituted, tax revenue would increase for the government. This in turn could be used to lower business taxes and stimulate economic growth.

Rather true - but the idea here is to also allow the dwindling "middle class" to get a foothold as well - the so-called "working poor."

I'm not out to make everyone rich - there are some people who just don't want it. I've never wanted to get rich, just be comfortable doing something that makes me happy. However, this nation is rapidly being divided into the exceedingly rich and the people working like mad just to tread water (probably because the middle class supports the lower class,) and there's something basically wrong with that. It's not enough that we have to support the "working incompetent" (government functionaries - not the people doing actual work!) but we've got to prop up people who either can't or won't get useful jobs, or people who never got the training they'd need to get jobs (which would get me started on public education - subject for another time...)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the time for unions has come and (largely) gone, and government is getting out of control. What do you propose we do to stop it?

5-90

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

What do you propose we do to stop it?

5-90

Make the richest contribute on a level equally proportionate to what us working joe's contribute...

make govt. programs to help the "needy" damn near impossible to take advantage of...

Instead of just giving out handouts, the govt. should encourage and only help those of the public that truly want and demonstrate that they are contributing members of society and not leeches.

Want public aid?

Here's a broom-go sweep town square

Want food stamps but can't work because you've got kids to take of?-here's a govt.sponsored daycare where you can take care of your kids and others who work.

It's true...

The middle class is carrying the brunt of all our social programs while the rich sit back and enjoy juicy tax breaks...

everyone needs to carry their own weight...

either through their own labor...

or their checkbook.

 

[5-90]

Intriguing - and somewhat in line with ideas I've had as well...

Bring about a "flat tax" - and if it doesn't bring enough in, start cutting on people who don't actually do useful work (functionaries, congresscritters, and the like. Most of them are hideously overpaid anyhow.)

Make welfare difficult to get, put a cap on it (you collect according to the kids you have at the time. If you have another, you get to figure out how to pay for it...) Reinstate both the "Pauper's Oath" (if you're on welfare, you don't get to vote. Want to vote? Get off the dole...) and a variation of Works Progress - so we get something back for the money we're paying out. Even if it's just pushing an idiot stick, there's always something that wants doing...

"Everyone needs to carry their own weight" - something I've been trying to do for years. If it weren't for being "overqualified and undereducated," it wouldn't be such a problem. So, my wife and I decided that I'd take a few years off and stack up degrees, and take care of the "undereducated" part. Can't really do anything about "overqualified," but there are a number of "unqualified" people running about, aren't there...?

5-90

 

[flexjay87]

as a pecentage, the more you make the more you pay in taxes, right? so a lot of families who have incomes of approx. 35k or less don't pay any taxes do they?

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

as a pecentage, the more you make the more you pay in taxes, right? so a lot of families who have incomes of approx. 35k or less don't pay any taxes do they?

wrong.

percentage wise the system sucks...

look into "tax brackets"

 

[5-90]

as a pecentage, the more you make the more you pay in taxes, right? so a lot of families who have incomes of approx. 35k or less don't pay any taxes do they?

More or less true - but there are "tax advantages" that are not available to the family making $35K, but would be to a family making $350K - which makes it entirely possible for the higher-end income to pay less.

A "flat tax" would be exactly that - pay out a flat rate - say, 10% of your income - with no mechanism for deductions, exemptions, or any-damn-thing else. You get 10% taken right out of your paycheque, but you don't have to file a return, because 10% is all the government gets - no more, and no less.

States can follow the lead of the Feds, only with a 3-5% cut (since they're smaller.) Ditto eliminating state tax returns.

This would be good because you don't need people to audit us anymore, don't need to have our returns checked, and would therefore be able to get rid of abour 95% of the manning for the various state tax boards and the IRS (let them go work for a living...) Use this example to cut the quasi-fiefdoms we've got elsewhere in government, and that would further reduce spending.

Significant welfare reforms would help - at all levels - and, while the ideas here wouldn't be a panacea, they'd be a damn good start!

Discuss.

5-90

 

[RCman]

After reading 5-90's posts I think he's got it right.

I'm sick of seeing people on welfare and have a lot of stuff handed to them. Sure there may be people that honestly do need the food stamps, WIC, etc. However the majority of them do not.

I don't get the people who make the state pay for childcare from 7am-5pm while they sit at home and ''look for a job'' while collecting in on their state supported lives. If you can't afford to have children, don't. If the state (and myself) is paying for your child to eat, please don't have any more fun and start raising another!

Another thing that gets me is the people that ''scam the system''. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone in line pay for their groceries with food stamps and then take out a wade of twentys to pay for the taxable items only to soon after walk out to their $30-$50 thousand dollar cars. It just doesn't make sence.

 

[5-90]

After reading 5-90's posts I think he's got it right.

I'm sick of seeing people on welfare and have a lot of stuff handed to them. Sure there may be people that honestly do need the food stamps, WIC, etc. However the majority of them do not.

I don't get the people who make the state pay for childcare from 7am-5pm while they sit at home and ''look for a job'' while collecting in on their state supported lives. If you can't afford to have children, don't. If the state (and myself) is paying for your child to eat, please don't have any more fun and start raising another!

Another thing that gets me is the people that ''scam the system''. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone in line pay for their groceries with food stamps and then take out a wade of twentys to pay for the taxable items only to soon after walk out to their $30-$50 thousand dollar cars. It just doesn't make sence.

Oh, the stories I could tell...

I have nothing against Worker's Compensation - if you're genuinely injured on the job, it's the employer's look-out to take care of you. I have problems with the idea of someone collecting multiple WC claims - I've put a couple of those people in jail.

Unemployment insurance? I suppose - but I've never been able to collect (I'm white, and I live in CA. Go figure...) At least that one's on a time limit.
Employers could stand to be a little less picky - like I'd said, I've been told I'm "overqualified and undereducated" - huh? Since when do education have anything at all to do with qualifications - if I can do the job, get out of my way and let me do it! I can't help the fact that I came out of public schools a generation ago, and therefore learned something.

Welfare? Sure - but either public works or schooling as a condition of acceptance (in addition to the Pauper's Oath,) perhaps a two-year limit on what you get, and you get a SET amount once you start to collect. No more having more kids to get more money. If you, for some reason, go on welfare long-term, then tubal ligation and vasectomies are an option - no reason to support more of you.

Seems to me there are numbers on the food stamps, no? Perhaps cashiers should mark them when they get someone with the "wad of twenties" (I've seen a few of these as well...) and have them looked at rather strongly. I've seen it happen more than a few times where the food stamps are brought out to pay for "foodstuffs," and then the cash comes out for beer, booze, and smokes. Sometimes for more than the food itself...

5-90

 

[Ramsey]

for people with small brains...

I am a converted 5-90 disiple...

Maybe I dont want to read half a page of someones rant, unless maybe it was Dennis Miller. Disciples are for jews

 

[5-90]

Maybe I dont want to read half a page of someones rant, unless maybe it was Dennis Miller. Disciples are for jews

Force of long-standing habit. One of the most common questions on any exam I took in school ('way back when, they don't seem to do this much anymore...) was "Why?"

You could get docked entirely for the right answer, if you didn't provide supporting logic. You could get partial credit for a wrong answer, by following good logic, but starting with a flawed premise. As a result, I have since developed the habit of explaining myself. Ask me how to fix something, and I'll tell you what will work - and why - and what won't work - and why not. You'll probably end up learning something in spite of yourself...

I've just never really stopped explaining myself - makes it easier to prove when someone else is wrong about something, and it makes it easier for me to be proven wrong (since you can usually point out the flawed premise, and we can work forward from there...)

5-90

 

[Ramsey]

:doh:

 

[OT]

:doh:

X2.

 

[Ironmen77]

wrong.

percentage wise the system sucks...

look into "tax brackets"

IRS figures for 2003.

Revenue paid in.

Rich are paying more than their share.

 

[OT]

Do you have a chart that shows what percentage of their income the upper, middle, and lower classes paid in?

 

[TC]

The richest of Americans pay more than their fair share in taxes. It's the poor who don't contribute, in more ways than just taxes. I feel ALL who work should pay taxes, after all those who pay the least generally benefit the most from the government. There's no reason they should be riding along on the backs of those who work and have the most confiscated from their paychecks every week. If you're not paying into the system you don't have a stake in America, for that matter if yer not contributing you shouldn't be allowed to vote on income tax issues either. It doesn't seem right to be able to vote on an increase in taxes that only others will be forced to pay.
People who are either mentally or physically unable to work would be exempt, there would be some abuse of this but theres nothing new about that... a whole other topic.
Tax the poor,
Feed the rich,
'til there are no Poor no more...

 

[Ironmen77]

Do you have a chart that shows what percentage of their income the upper, middle, and lower classes paid in?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf


page 16,17,18 etc.

 

[5-90]

The richest of Americans pay more than their fair share in taxes. It's the poor who don't contribute, in more ways than just taxes. I feel ALL who work should pay taxes, after all those who pay the least generally benefit the most from the government. There's no reason they should be riding along on the backs of those who work and have the most confiscated from their paychecks every week. If you're not paying into the system you don't have a stake in America, for that matter if yer not contributing you shouldn't be allowed to vote on income tax issues either. It doesn't seem right to be able to vote on an increase in taxes that only others will be forced to pay.
People who are either mentally or physically unable to work would be exempt, there would be some abuse of this but theres nothing new about that... a whole other topic.
Tax the poor,
Feed the rich,
'til there are no Poor no more...

Note that at no time did I say that taxes should not be paid. However, what I have said over and over again, is that most of the money going in (tax revenues) are being misspent on any number of things (start with congresscriters, welfare, not paying off the trade deficit or the national debt - take your pick.)

I am therefore inclined to think that Congress would be rather more parsimonius with their money if they knew they weren't going to get so much of it.

Also, I agree with the point made after the pies popped up - and you know the IRS is going to spin the Hell out of their figure. I'd like to see comparisons of absolute tax dollars paid by income bracket both as a percentage of governmental income and as a percentage of individual compensation. That would probably be enlightening...

Thus, the idea of either a "flat tax" or a "National Retail Sales Tax" - the "Flat tax" would be a dead flat percentage of gross income, with no need to fill out returns and deductions - since they would be shot up entirely once the flat tax went into effect.

The NRST would be a bit more fair - because it would give us a small control over how much we pay. You don't pay taxes on the money until you spend it, and it would be administeres in a similar manner to state sales taxes - viz, not assessed against foodstuffs and medications, but charged on everything else. If you don't want to pay so much in taxes, don't spend so much.

Either system would, I'm sure, be more fair than what we've got now. Also, you'd see a lot of "tax cheaing" going away - with a flat tax, you'd pay out that flat percentage and that's it. No return to file, no deductions to take advantage of - 10% and your tithes are paid.

Similar would be the NRST - don't want to pay a lot of taxes? Save your money. You wouldn't get taxed against savings and interest - simply because your taxes aren't assessed until you spend your money.

Discuss.

5-90

 

[Ironmen77]

5-90, either of these would be great , with sales tax best. The only way any reform takes place is pressure from voters. The only thing politicans fear is losing their job. Having said that, once there are more people in the country that get back more than they pay in. Meaningful tax reform will be dead forever.

 

[McDonnie91]

Wouldn't the idea of no taxes till you spend your money encourage people to sit on their money and couldn't that hurt the economy in the long run also I don't think that the Pauper's Oath would really stimulate the poor to work seeing as many don't bother voting anyways... just a thought

 

[5-90]

Wouldn't the idea of no taxes till you spend your money encourage people to sit on their money and couldn't that hurt the economy in the long run also I don't think that the Pauper's Oath would really stimulate the poor to work seeing as many don't bother voting anyways... just a thought

Not necessarily - since you still have to buy consumer goods (closting and raw materials for them, household goods, automotive goods, and suchlike) - but you'd get some more control over how much you give the government.

The Pauper's Oath may not be a fully effective solution in and of itself either - but the fall of Rome was attributed to "bread and circuses" - "The people will continue to vote themselve bread and circuses until there are neither bread nor circuses." Frankly, I'm a bit suspect of the current "warm body" voting requirements - the idea that having a body temperature at or near 37*C can make you an effective decision-maker is foolhardy. For an alternate idea, read "The Curious Republic of Gondour" by Mark Twain... I think it's available from Project Gutenberg for free.

5-90