Limit Professionals Compensation

[laurence]

Indirect self interest, my first jobs have been with small companies owned by people who's gross receipts qualified them as "rich". Maybe if they were taxed higher they couldn't have hired me on....

I am amazed by some very poor conservatives, who consistently vote against their self interest. I'd like to say it was because of their firmly held beliefs, but upon talking with some of my friends/family in that demographic (warning, anecdotal evidence) they seem to believe they are going to be rich some day. I am confident many are taking a principled stand, they are good people, trust my kids with them types. But I think optimism plays a part here too, and I can't say that's a bad thing.

(Caveat - I'm a McCain/Powell type Republican, which depending on who you ask makes me either a neanderthal or a bleeding heart commie lib).

 

[Danny]

One reason that I have heard, and can relate to somewhat, is that even if you don't make the top, you may aspire for it. And you feel better knowing that you *could* make it big, even if it never happens.

At some point (and I don't know what that point is), if you take that 'dream' away, you may take people's incentives away. I like the fact that someone from humble beginnings can (and do) make it 'big'.

I just feel that in general, free markets work better than govt mandates. There are exceptions, this *may* be one of them, but I'd like to see some evidence of it. I don't have too much problem with costs going up, if there is an overall benefit to society.

But I don't quite buy your argument that up-ing the min wage will make all those workers that much more productive. A wage that is higher than *other* wages will require those seeking that higher wage to be more productive, but I don't see that working if *everyone* gets the same rise.

If bus boys get $X/hr now, and that goes to 1.5X, are all bus boys going to be 1.5X more productive, long term? I have trouble seeing that. And if they were, wouldn't the restaurant owner be able to get by with fewer of these now amazingly productive employees? Wait a minute... if THAT happens, we just widened the gap, didn't we? Some people get paid more, while some are out of a job making ZERO?

Remember what I said about unintended consequences.....

-I'm way beyond my original 3 cents now but that was just a temporary and voluntary 'restraining order' - back to tiling now.


-ERD50

Interesting to hear your take erd.

As far as motivation and money - you can have high paid execs who lose their motivation also - some retire early.
There are more ways than just money to motivate a worker - some of them don't cost anything...
I like marketplace to take care of business also, but we really don't have a true one - if all the illegal workers went back home - I think wages would rise in the industries they work in they would have to attract the worker willing to do the job - also anecdotal observation - lately the roofers and house builders I've seen in the area don't appear to be from south of the border... maybe some the employers are getting scared of the government checking to see if they're doing the right thing....
as far as workers losing jobs - we do have a fairly fluided job market

 

[Danny]

Indirect self interest, my first jobs have been with small companies owned by people who's gross receipts qualified them as "rich". Maybe if they were taxed higher they couldn't have hired me on....

I am amazed by some very poor conservatives, who consistently vote against their self interest. I'd like to say it was because of their firmly held beliefs, but upon talking with some of my friends/family in that demographic (warning, anecdotal evidence) they seem to believe they are going to be rich some day. I am confident many are taking a principled stand, they are good people, trust my kids with them types. But I think optimism plays a part here too, and I can't say that's a bad thing.

(Caveat - I'm a McCain/Powell type Republican, which depending on who you ask makes me either a neanderthal or a bleeding heart commie lib).

I 'm actually an independent with closet old school moderate/[-]liberal[/-] progressive republican tendencies... so I could get behind Powell..I've kinda got confused with the changes McCain has been going through though

 

[saluki9]

I've been meaning to ask - why are the defenders of the wealthy not paying higher taxes so passionate about your position - if you are in that category - I can understand where you're coming from (self-interest) - if not why would you want to defend them? How does it affect you...I'm serious, I want to understand the reasoning


And why are those against lifting the minimum wage so strongly against it....it will lift your costs? is that it?

1. I'm in a high bracket, but not the highest. (YET!) But I hope to get there soon. I think the answer is that we're waiting for all the bleeding heart leftists to start paying 80% in taxes like friends in Sweden that they all seem to idolize so much. As soon as you do that, I will start picking up the slack.

2. As for the question on minimum wage, you have to realize that some of us are against any more interference in business from the government. Increasing the minimum wage would just make that worse.

 

[Danny]

1. I'm in a high bracket, but not the highest. (YET!) But I hope to get there soon. I think the answer is that we're waiting for all the bleeding heart leftists to start paying 80% in taxes like friends in Sweden that they all seem to idolize so much. As soon as you do that, I will start picking up the slack.

2. As for the question on minimum wage, you have to realize that some of us are against any more interference in business from the government. Increasing the minimum wage would just make that worse.

thanks...congrats on your success..are your friends in Sweden unhappy..are they trying to leave... I was reading a little while ago that Sweden rates near the top in happiness and healthiness (although I wouldn't know it from watch Bergman films)....US is down the list some

Lets face it business in effect and practice is in a partnership with government on many levels

 

[lets-retire]

I neither oppose or support increasing taxes on the rich. With that said, I do not believe raising the taxes for the wealthy really does anything to them. Many, if not most, wealthy are in the enviable position to almost be able to dictate their wages. If the government decides to raise the taxes on these people x amount of dollars it would not be to difficult for them to raise the prices of whatever product they sell to compensate. The end result is an increase in prices for everyone. For a company that sells millions of widgets per year the increase might only be .01 per item, but either way the middle class and poor are still the people who are paying the taxes, not the rich. So in reality an increase in taxes on the rich is an increase of taxes for the middle class and poor.

I do not support an increase of the minimum wage for reason already stated in this thread. It does nothing for those making minimum wage, because the companies they work for must increase the price of products they sell to compensate for the wage increase. Not only does this affect those making near minimum wage it also has a ripple effect. If you are making $2.00 more than the minimum wage before it is increased, but after an increase you are only making .50 more than minimum, you are not going to be as motivated until you receive a pay raise. This further compounds the purchase power problems. During my last year as a police officer the state raised the minimum wage. This brought those making at or near minimum very close to the wages of security guards. Now the security companies had to give pay increases in order to keep they guards. The resulting increase brought the security guards very close to the starting pay at my agency. That became a joke around the department, but we were not due for contract negotiations for another two years. It's simple economics, if a country has more money things will cost more. If people make more money they will have to pay more for the goods they want to purchase. We could see this happen around January 1st every year when I lived near military bases. That is when the housing allowances would adjust for the military members. Amazingly that is also when the rents would adjust for the apartments around the military bases. You could tell what ranks the management companies wanted to live they by comparing the rents to the housing allowances.

 

[RetireeRobert]

There are many ways to interpret facts. You mention only the numbers that support your opinion.

If a guy makes $10M/year and pays 23% in taxes he still has $7.7M left. Do you really think that it would be a bad thing if he had to pay say $3.3M and had to live on only $6.7M/year?

I think that an upper tax bracket in the 39-44% range is reasonable. I wouldn't go much above that.

OK. You call me a liar, then say doing that is not an ad hominum attack. As a retired CPA who used to get paid for giving my word, I resent that.

But, don't believe me. Here is an article from Kiplinger's Magazine. They happen to present the same data. Call them liar's too.

The data is the data. It seems you do not want to accept the implications of that data---"well, you mention only numbers that support your opinion". Sorry, these are the only numbers out there. You don't mention any IRS supplied numbers to support your apparent bias and faulty thinking.


From Kiplinger's Magazine:
"TAXES
How Do You Rank as a Taxpayer?
The latest statistics show a growing income gap between rich and poor and a far wider gap between the tax burden carried by different economic classes. Where do you stand as a money maker and a taxpayer?
By Kevin McCormally
November 6, 2007


The idea of keeping up with the Joneses is so 1950s. And forget the Carnegies, the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts. These days, we want to keep up with the Gateses and the Buffetts, the Allens and the Waltons.
So maybe that's a stretch. But do you ever wonder how your income stacks up against your fellow citizens?
New data show that an income of $30,881 or more puts you in the top half of the class. Earning about twice that much -- $62,068 -- earns you a spot among the top 25% of all wage earners. You crack the elite top 10% if you earn more than $103,912.
And $364,657 buys top bragging rights: Earn that much or more and you're among the top 1% of all American earners. Together, the top 1% earn a full 21% of the income reported to the IRS -- far more than the 13% of total income reported by the bottom 50% of earners.
Here's another powerful statistic about the top 1% of earners: They pay a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% pay just 3% of all income taxes.
Income here is defined as adjusted gross income (AGI) reported on income tax returns. AGI is basically salary plus investment, rental and business income minus investment losses and expenses such as alimony paid, contributions to retirement plans, moving expenses and a few other costs.
These statistics come from just-released data based on 2005 tax returns and do not distinguish between single and joint returns. (Note that these figures focus on income taxes and do not include Social Security taxes. Lower-earning taxpayers pay a far higher percentage of their income in Social Security taxes than do higher-earning taxpayers.)
How does your income stack up? What percentage of the nation's tax burden falls on your shoulders? Kiplinger has developed an on-line calculator to instantly deliver the answers. So try our calculator and find out.
The following table shows the income categories, the percentage of income earned by earners in that category and tax burden carried by members of that category.
BREAKDOWN OF INCOME AND TAXES PAID BY CATEGORYIncome Category2005 AGIPercent of all incomePercent of income taxes paidTop 1%Over $364,65721%39%Top 5%Over $145,28336%60%Top 10%Over $103,91246%70%Top 25%Over $62,06868%86%Top 50%Over $30,88187%97%Bottom 50%Under $30,88213%3%
Source: IRS"

 

[Texas Proud]

thanks...congrats on your success..are your friends in Sweden unhappy..are they trying to leave... I was reading a little while ago that Sweden rates near the top in happiness and healthiness (although I wouldn't know it from watch Bergman films)....US is down the list some

Lets face it business in effect and practice is in a partnership with government on many levels

Are the not at the top of the list for suicide?

 

[RetireeRobert]

I've been meaning to ask - why are the defenders of the wealthy not paying higher taxes so passionate about your position -

why would you want to defend them?

You seem to take it as gospel that to be wealthy is inherently "bad". It is a condition that just inherently "must" be "punished" with higher taxes. That the wealthy, just by the fact of being wealthy, automatically are of such disreputable class that they need "defending".

"Why do you defend the wealthy?" you demand to know in total apparent disbelief.

Why do you feel that way? Why is defending one class something that must be explained to others. Why are you such an elitist snob that looks down on this class of people as substandard, illigetimate, and needing of punishment?

I would like to know why you practice such discrimination?

 

[ERD50]

Interesting to hear your take erd.

As far as motivation and money - you can have high paid execs who lose their motivation also - some retire early.
There are more ways than just money to motivate a worker - some of them don't cost anything...

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how it changes anything. Until the govt finds a way to tax 'job satisfaction' .

I imagine there are some former highly paid execs on this board that would consider ER a 'different' form of motivation, rather than a lack of it.

I like marketplace to take care of business also, but we really don't have a true one - if all the illegal workers went back home - I think wages would rise in the industries they work in they would have to attract the worker willing to do the job

I don't want to get into an 'illegal' worker debate, but if that is your belief then we should address the problem rather than the symptom. More buckets on the floor really does not 'fix' a leaky roof.

-ERD50

 

[saluki9]

thanks...congrats on your success..are your friends in Sweden unhappy..are they trying to leave... I was reading a little while ago that Sweden rates near the top in happiness and healthiness (although I wouldn't know it from watch Bergman films)....US is down the list some

Lets face it business in effect and practice is in a partnership with government on many levels

1. I've seen how government works, I don't want to be in ANY partnership with it.

2. Funny that you commented on the Sweden point. I think the reason for their supposed high level of happiness is that there are so many people sitting around doing nothing (and getting paid for it) what's not to be happy about? Go ask a professional if they like their work environment there? I sat on a long flight next to a Swedish doctor. It was saddening for me to hear the story of a man who spent so much time working towards his career and hardly receives what would be considered a living wage for it. If that's your idea of a utopia, I don't know what to say?

 

[bright eyed]

1. I'm in a high bracket, but not the highest. (YET!) But I hope to get there soon. I think the answer is that we're waiting for all the bleeding heart leftists to start paying 80% in taxes like friends in Sweden that they all seem to idolize so much. As soon as you do that, I will start picking up the slack.

2. As for the question on minimum wage, you have to realize that some of us are against any more interference in business from the government. Increasing the minimum wage would just make that worse.

Ok, I have an honest question too...

For the high income bracketers and/or tax , such as yourself... Say you don't support increased minimum wages (i'm actually wavering on this one, i can't believe it myself!)... What about the folks who work hard - often back breaking work, work more than one job, 2 plus income homes that still can't get by? Is that their fault? Even if one thinks that - in the end, we all end up paying the ER bill, or bankruptcy costs for people who can't manage money (poor education, or just plain not making it?) or no/sucky health insurance...

To me it doesn't make sense to starve some people - rationalize the starvation ideologically (they should have worked harder, I'm not responsible) ... yet we all still end up paying. So I'm wondering about the pay now (higher wages, mandated or not) versus starve and pay later?

In CA, prop 13 has starved our schools (hey, buffet even thinks it was a dumb idea). Now we're all paying with less well educated workers - and even businesses are getting involved and saying sheesh, we have to fix this mess. So again, I say, pay now or pay later?

 

[Texas Proud]

One of the problems about talking about money being a motivator is that it is and it isn't.... at some point it does motivate, but then it becomes a demotivator... and if someone stays at the same level, then over time he becomes demotivated (ie, another year without a raise... why should I do good work)..

I remember one exec who insisted money was not a motivator... I said stop paying everybody and see how many people show up for work tomorrow...

But the real graph is one that comes back on itself... I can't draw it well but I do remember it back during economics...

So, think of someone who is not making a lot... tell him he can work more hours and get more income and he will do it because it increases his total earnings... but eventually he reaches a point where he does not want to work more hours for the same wage and will 'demand' a higher rate... well, now he is making more money so he does not want to work all those hours.. so the graph comes back on itself .... here is a VERY CRUDE view of hours and income.... (well, the chart does not want to work... so.. even worse...

|
| XXX
| XXXX
| XXXXXX
| XXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXX
| XXXXXXXX
| XXXXXX
| XXXX
| XX
| X
----------------

 

[eridanus]

1. I've seen how government works, I don't want to be in ANY partnership with it.

2. Funny that you commented on the Sweden point. I think the reason for their supposed high level of happiness is that there are so many people sitting around doing nothing (and getting paid for it) what's not to be happy about?

1) Being a mercenary, I'll work for either corporations or government, as long as they pay my rate. Large corporations can easily be as inefficient as government.
2) Swedes are sitting around doing nothing? I want some of that. O0

Per capita income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ERD50]

OK, this min-wage debate can get pretty heated. Anyone up for a little tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor?

Here we go - from wiki (emphasis mine):

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the economics profession, however - and particularly among American economists - opinions of the minimum wage tend to be less favorable. A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed under certain conditions, and 26.5% disagreed.[9]


Ok, there you have it. 73.5% of the 'experts' agreed that minimum wage increases can increase unemployment among young and unskilled workers', the very ones hurt most by unemployment!

WE HAVE CONSENSUS - There is a direct correlation, and the data is unequivocal... THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!!



Oh sorry, maybe only liberals can use that line. Carry on, more serious post to follow.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

OK, here's an excerpt from the minimum wage page from wiki. Here's my take on the 'support' issues:

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debate - Support

Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:

* Increases the average living standard.[15]

Maybe, but there is that raised cost of goods issue. Not sure if that is a big deal or not. And, IF it does result in fewer jobs, would the 'average' really go up?

* Creates incentive to work. (Contrast with welfare transfer payments.)[16]

Well, I said earlier that I don't think it creates incentives if everyone gets a raise. I don't know about the comparison to welfare, might be something to that, but I don't know current welfare policy enough to comment.

* Does not have budget consequence on government. "Neither taxes nor public sector borrowing requirements rise." (Contrast with negative income taxes such as the EITC.)[16]

Unless it results in some increased unemployment - the gov't has to deal with that.

* Minimum wage is administratively simple; workers only need to report violations of wages less than minimum, minimizing a need for a large enforcement agency.[16]

OK, minimum wage is pretty simple, but not simpler than NOT having a minimum wage. So we are back to the previous question on whether it would result in more unemployment, which WOULD create more govt admin work.

* Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks.[15]

Back to the question of whether the increased cost of goods wipes this out?It is at least a mitigating factor, I can't say how big of an issue it is.

* Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees.[15]

We've covered this one. I really don't think the employees are going to be much more motivated. It is the same job, it isn't a step up in responsibility - it is (almost be definition) the lowest responsibility job one could have. How can the employer 'demand more'? He can't threaten to hire someone else for less money. The employer can really only demand more from the people that he/she is paying MORE than minimum wage. Very weak IMO.

* Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid.[15]

I've heard this argument before, it sounds good, but I just don't have enough data to know if it makes sense or not. I would need to know -

1) What % of min-wage earners are recipients of social programs now? For example, my kids have worked min-wage jobs, they were not recipients of social programs. But I don't know the breakdown - obviously many are.

2) Would a few $/hr really make the diff in being on/off a social program? esp if costs of goods rise to offset some of that?

3) Back to the Q of whether min-wage increases would increase unemployment.

Bright eyed - sounds like you were 'cracking' there... better run off to the dailycos and get some nice fresh liberal kool-aid Just kidding, I really can't figure out where I stand on the issue either. I like free markets, but it does seem that if you are working and putting in a good effort, there is some minimum level of reward you should get for that. I don't like the idea of a business taking someone for all they are worth, just because you can. But I also can't help but fear that the consequences of fiddlin' with that free market will cause more problems than it solves.

Bottom line, I don't think it is as simple as 'raise the min wage and everybody will be better off by that $ amount'. But maybe the good outweighs the bad? Heck if I know!

-ERD50

 

[bright eyed]

Bright eyed - sounds like you were 'cracking' there... better run off to the dailycos and get some nice fresh liberal kool-aid Just kidding, I really can't figure out where I stand on the issue either. I like free markets, but it does seem that if you are working and putting in a good effort, there is some minimum level of reward you should get for that. I don't like the idea of a business taking someone for all they are worth, just because you can. But I also can't help but fear that the consequences of fiddlin' with that free market will cause more problems than it solves.

Bottom line, I don't think it is as simple as 'raise the min wage and everybody will be better off by that $ amount'. But maybe the good outweighs the bad? Heck if I know!

-ERD50

Who me?

I don't like to read blogs, magazines or papers from like minded people, it creates tunnel vision. Instead I like to beat my head against concrete round these parts... I honestly am a toss up too...i just want the end result to be more efficient and fair...

 

[Danny]

Are the not at the top of the list for suicide?

The Swedish suicides were surveyed too. They were healthy and happy to kill themselves...

 

[Danny]

..I imagine there are some former highly paid execs on this board that would consider ER a 'different' form of motivation, rather than a lack of it.

I don't want to get into an 'illegal' worker debate, but if that is your belief then we should address the problem rather than the symptom. More buckets on the floor really does not 'fix' a leaky roof.-ERD50

ER was very much a motivation for me...some lose motivation to work no matter how much the money...some prime examples are some sports figures earning $5-25 million a year and who feel insulted or disrespected if they don't get what they feel they're worth for another guaranteed 5 years...
I don't want to get into the illegal debate or solve it with buckets or a new roof...my point is there is no true "free market" out there...

a little while after I asked the question why people who are not themselves in the upper echelon of earners, would want to prevent the raising of rates...I was walking Lily and listening to National Progressive Radio - they had a piece on why americans are against raising taxes (from15% to 35% - i guess they have some loop hole where they only have to pay 15%)on hedge fund managers making more than $100 million a year. It has to do with aspiration...that even though the chance of doing so themselves is near zero, they still think there's a chance they could do it too...

 

[ERD50]

OK, I finally took a minute to think about this idea that increasing the min-wage would increase the cost of goods that poor people need to buy.

It would, but not to any great extent. A min-wage worker will spend all they make. Increase their wage by 20% and they will spend that additional 20% also. But the price of the 'stuff' they buy is not 100% labor content, so only the labor content portion of that will go up 20%. So, it depends on the labor content of their purchases, but will never be 100%.

Seems obvious, but I had to think it through.

So it is a mitigating factor, but probably not too big a deal.

How about something else we could agree on? IMO, if we ARE going to have a min-wage standard, they ought to automatically index it to inflation! It's crazy to say it is needed, but then not index it. I've heard that the politicians do this, so they can vote on it every few years. Gives them something to talk about w/o dealing with the important issues We are doomed!


-ERD50

 

[Danny]

1. I've seen how government works, I don't want to be in ANY partnership with it.

2. Funny that you commented on the Sweden point. I think the reason for their supposed high level of happiness is that there are so many people sitting around doing nothing (and getting paid for it) what's not to be happy about? Go ask a professional if they like their work environment there? I sat on a long flight next to a Swedish doctor. It was saddening for me to hear the story of a man who spent so much time working towards his career and hardly receives what would be considered a living wage for it. If that's your idea of a utopia, I don't know what to say?

Sweden is supposed to have very high productivity and standard of living despite high taxes,(I don't have time to get the stats ERD) I'm not going to accept the dissatisifaction of your seat mate (or was that your unhappiness) and extrapolate it for 9 million swedes - can you give me the facts that backup the 80% tax rate you mentioned?

Was it you or Robert that railed against "bleeding heart lefties" - well I'll just say thank god for them and for the one with JC for initials (Jimmy Carter!)

 

[mb]

OK. You call me a liar, then say doing that is not an ad hominum attack. As a retired CPA who used to get paid for giving my word, I resent that.
"

RetireeRobert,

I'm sorry if I offended you but I think that you are misinterpreting my post.

I accept the data that you provide as fact. How can I be calling you a liar if I accept your data?

Your data shows that the top 1% of earners pay a large portion of the taxes. I agree. That is indisputable.

I did not provide any new raw data so of course I did not provide a reference. All that I did was take your data and did the following simple calculations.

Based on your data, for the top 1% of earners: (0.21)(1-0.23)/(1) = 0.16. Which shows based on the raw data that you provided that the top 1% of earners still have 16% of the gross income after taxes, i.e. a lot of money.

For the bottom 50%: (.13)/50 = 0.0026. Which shows that the bottom 50% have only 0.26% of the gross income per percentile of population, i.e. much less money.

The ratio of these two values is 62.

So the emotional response to the fact that the top 1% pay 39% of the taxes is that it is really unfair and boy we are really soaking the rich.

The emotional response to the fact that the ratio of after tax income of the top 1% to the bottom 50% is 62 is that boy that is really unfair and how come the income distribution is so skewed.

You mentioned the fact that the top earners pay most of the taxes which I agree with but you failed to mention that they still retain a very large fraction of the income even after paying taxes. They are both facts derived from your data. That is what I meant when I said that you only presented the data that supported your opinion. I'm sorry if I said it in a way that offended but the later fact is equally as valid as the former.

MB

 

[Texas Proud]

Who me?

I don't like to read blogs, magazines or papers from like minded people, it creates tunnel vision. Instead I like to beat my head against concrete round these parts... I honestly am a toss up too...i just want the end result to be more efficient and fair...

Yes you... ( really, I don't know what you were responding to... I just had to do it )

So some pounding of my own....

Bright eyed... the number of people with any kind of skill at the minimum wage (and guessing here) has to be very very small... most minimum wage is the teen food servers, the cleaning people, the unskilled laborers.. once you get a bit of skill and show some moxy, you get a raise..

Heck, my nephew got a raise just because he showed up for this job on time all the time... seems this is a new idea for some of the teens... they rewarded him for 'doing better' than the normal guy...

Now... let's say that the person has not skill or intelligence to do better.. I am pretty sure they are getting extra from the gvmt in some kind of wealth transfer..

I had said this on another thread.. and this was the couple of years I was in NY... they reported that the 'average' welfare person (and I am not talking minimum wage here but welfare)... had a cell phone, a microwave and cable TV.. so more than 50% had all three (there were more on the list, but I can not remember what they are)...

Now, anyone that is using my tax money to live should not be able to afford a cell phone... period... if you can waste money on cigs, drugs and cell phone you do not need assistance...

But I am really on the fence on the minimum wage... I agree with the recent law change as it was getting pretty low when compared to inflation...

 

[bright eyed]

OK, I finally took a minute to think about this idea that increasing the min-wage would increase the cost of goods that poor people need to buy.

It would, but not to any great extent. A min-wage worker will spend all they make. Increase their wage by 20% and they will spend that additional 20% also. But the price of the 'stuff' they buy is not 100% labor content, so only the labor content portion of that will go up 20%. So, it depends on the labor content of their purchases, but will never be 100%.

Seems obvious, but I had to think it through.

So it is a mitigating factor, but probably not too big a deal.

How about something else we could agree on? IMO, if we ARE going to have a min-wage standard, they ought to automatically index it to inflation! It's crazy to say it is needed, but then not index it. I've heard that the politicians do this, so they can vote on it every few years. Gives them something to talk about w/o dealing with the important issues We are doomed!


-ERD50

sometimes things are quite effective at persuading a voter without reflecting the actual possible outcome...heck i guess that's 90% of politics!

I agree, there are soo many things that should include inflation-esque increases, yet they are very often not built in...set up to fail, or strain at the least. Then someone has to have the guts to say, fellas, it's time to raise some revenue, or cut something or both and the brew-ha-ha begins... even things that aren't that controvers'l like transpo maintenence get short-sighted funding. Sometimes its because they can only find the revenue to cover just so much each year, so it's not all gutlessness...

CA's governator came in with sweeping intentions to overall public services, but that stopped a few months in because nobody could find a program that should be cut. I think he was stunned.

 

[Danny]

Here's a documentary about how the wealthy and corporations feel they are paying too much in taxes and how they go about shamefully avoiding the paying of their "fair share."

Tax Me If You Can

According to the documentary:
Corporations from 1950 - 2000 paid an average of 17% of the Fed taxes
Now they pay only 7%
In theory they pay 35% rate, but with loopholes they are paying 15-20%
The rest of us are picking up the slack.

How The Super Rich Avoid Paying Taxes