This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The disparity between rich and poor
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
I suppose 2 in the morning was not a good time to argue anything. I don't think 'raise the minimum wage' is the argument I'm trying to put forth, but rather, 'raise the minimum standard of living.'
Post by
ElhonnaDS
We should definitely try to raise the standard of living for everyone, but not with handouts. Educating people on how to handle money correctly will go much further than taking money from people who know how to earn , and giving it to people who don't. All of these things that you're talking about- housing, food, clothing, medicine- they take work to create. People have to put forth effort and resources to make them. They then trade them for resources that make the work worthwhile. Why should they be given freely to people who are not putting out the effort?
I agree that these things should be available to people regardless of income level- but available doesn't mean free. You have to work to survive. You have to earn money, to pay for housing, food, clothing. This idea that you are entitled to have other people pay for your life when you don't is silly, an invention of the modern world, and is killing productivity and the sense of accountability in the US. If you are someone who because of age or infirmity CAN'T provide for yourself, then the humane thing is to help out, and I approve of government programs that do this. In the case of medical care, I believe that the insurance system inflated the costs beyond what a reasonable person could pay, and so the government should step in and correct it.
But no one is actually starving in this country, with all of the assistance programs, soup kitchens and extremely cheap food available- unless they're refusing to take advantage of what is already in place. There is plenty of housing available that is affordable to those making minimum wage. There are plenty of thrift stores where clothing is available at a fraction of what it would cost new. These are not the most ideal clothes, foods or housing, and you might have to have roomates, but they exist. If you want more than the basics, you should work for them. The basics are already available to everyone.
So much here about what people deserve, and almost nothing about what they earn. Out of curiosity, for the people who think that they are living below the poverty line and should be entitled to the money that the upper class has- How many hours a week do you work- if 40 isn't cutting it, do you pick up 50, 60, 70 by getting a second job? Do you smoke, drink, spend money on brand names, expensive electronics, etc.? Do you smoke weed? Did you try really hard in high school so that you might earn your way into college and avoid having a minimum wage job? Did you look into getting loans for college, so that you could find a higher paying job? If your credit keeps you from getting better jobs or loans, were the things that messed it up food and basic clothing, or eating out, buying things you really didn't need, etc? Did you really not have the money to make the payments, or did you just forget or not worry too much about being late.
If you answer all of these questions honestly (to yourself, you don't have to tell us), can you really say you have worked and tried as hard as the people who have worked 80 hours to become successful, or went for years without luxuries so they could achieve a goal like finishing college or building a business? Did you really take advantage of the things society is already providing you to improve your economic situation, like earning the kinds of grades in public school that would afford you academic scholarships? Or is your complaint that you want everything that they have, and you shouldn't have to work as hard as they did to get it?
Post by
818479
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
dumac
The reason why america is divided is quite simple.
Money are instead of getting diversied, they are stockpiled on certain groups. So the rich gets richer and the ones who are poor gets more poor.
The easiest fix is to raise taxes for everyone to a certain level, and let the money do its work there is best. Aka hospitals getting same status, school system educate for same value, you get some insurance net if you are un employeed etc etc(the net exist but it is quite weak to be honest).
Also skip un neccessary expensive some, alot of the money goes for things who should get reduced budget.
If the welfare is raised people who are poor would get a more realistic chance to improve their life and the people who are rich well they still got the same chance more or less.
Before anyone say "omg Communism", you are dead wrong, This is socialism more basic foundation and it is system who takes that is good in marx teaching but let it work on a capitalism module and it worked fine so far in Sweden.
Not saying sweden is perfect, but it is in a way better shape than the America system.
I am not that naive and to think that my word will have any real change, as far as I see it now, The world will get a real crisis in a year or two(max 5 years) and the American Union will get a backlash from their debts. The debts gotta be lowered drastic now or it is too late.
Anyhow I still do get a good chuckle watching those senators screaming REDUCE TAXES! or the regular stupid remarks they make about the world itself hehe.
Post by
Orranis
We should definitely try to raise the standard of living for everyone, but not with handouts. Educating people on how to handle money correctly will go much further than taking money from people who know how to earn , and giving it to people who don't. All of these things that you're talking about- housing, food, clothing, medicine- they take work to create. People have to put forth effort and resources to make them. They then trade them for resources that make the work worthwhile. Why should they be given freely to people who are not putting out the effort?
What makes you think they are? Medical payments are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America. I'm not saying people shouldn't have to work, I'm saying that it is completely amoral and disgusting to use medicine as a profitable business.
I agree that these things should be available to people regardless of income level- but available doesn't mean free. You have to work to survive. You have to earn money, to pay for housing, food, clothing. This idea that you are entitled to have other people pay for your life when you don't is silly, an invention of the modern world, and is killing productivity and the sense of accountability in the US. If you are someone who because of age or infirmity CAN'T provide for yourself, then the humane thing is to help out, and I approve of government programs that do this. In the case of medical care, I believe that the insurance system inflated the costs beyond what a reasonable person could pay, and so the government should step in and correct it.
I'm not saying that medical care should not be payed for at all, but the problem is that people show a profit in medical care. I simply do not believe you can have a moral system of medical care while it is being run by people whose goal is not to help you out, but to make money by doing so. If it had to be regulated by the Government, so be it, that's what taxes are for.
But no one is actually starving in this country, with all of the assistance programs, soup kitchens and extremely cheap food available- unless they're refusing to take advantage of what is already in place. There is plenty of housing available that is affordable to those making minimum wage. There are plenty of thrift stores where clothing is available at a fraction of what it would cost new. These are not the most ideal clothes, foods or housing, and you might have to have roomates, but they exist. If you want more than the basics, you should work for them. The basics are already available to everyone.
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, I live in a city where it's an oddity not to find at least one person that's been reduced to begging. Even homeless shelters are easier to visualize then actualize, I've heard tons of stories of brutality and violence. Sure they're supposedly available to everyone, but in actuality I definitely think there are many who slip through the cracks. Furthermore, I don't consider medical care or higher education 'more than the basics.' Those are things that everyone should be able to do. I also think you assume a lot when you say 'you should work for them,' it makes you look very arrogant. We are currently in an unemployment crisis. Simply working for them is not that easy, and it's a foolish concept that money comes only from hard-work. I guarantee you your average minimum wage factory worker works just as hard if not harder than any wealthy person you know.
So much here about what people deserve, and almost nothing about what they earn. Out of curiosity, for the people who think that they are living below the poverty line and should be entitled to the money that the upper class has- How many hours a week do you work- if 40 isn't cutting it, do you pick up 50, 60, 70 by getting a second job? Do you smoke, drink, spend money on brand names, expensive electronics, etc.? Do you smoke weed? Did you try really hard in high school so that you might earn your way into college and avoid having a minimum wage job? Did you look into getting loans for college, so that you could find a higher paying job? If your credit keeps you from getting better jobs or loans, were the things that messed it up food and basic clothing, or eating out, buying things you really didn't need, etc? Did you really not have the money to make the payments, or did you just forget or not worry too much about being late.
If you answer all of these questions honestly (to yourself, you don't have to tell us), can you really say you have worked and tried as hard as the people who have worked 80 hours to become successful, or went for years without luxuries so they could achieve a goal like finishing college or building a business? Did you really take advantage of the things society is already providing you to improve your economic situation, like earning the kinds of grades in public school that would afford you academic scholarships? Or is your complaint that you want everything that they have, and you shouldn't have to work as hard as they did to get it?
I don't think I can really answer any of these questions because I'm a fourteen year old living above the poverty line. My family isn't particularly wealthy, and they have to work pretty hard, but I'm not about to say I'm going hungry. Even so, things like Private School or getting into college without a scholarship are not options to me. I'm currently going to a high school that gives me two years of college credits as well as a four year high school education, so yes, I think I am doing pretty well on those scores.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Orranis
I don't think you understood what I wrote about medical care. I said that the system of insurance had brought prices well above what anyone can afford and that the government needs to step in. That's why I didn't list it as a necessity that is available to everyone- not because it isn't a necessity, but because I think the insurance system has taken it out of what is fair and affordable to normal people and the system needs to be fixed so that the prices of medical care are dictated by actual wages levels, and not what insurance companies can afford to pay. I agree with you on that.
In terms of higher education...everyone gets free public school up until grade 12. Academic scholarships are handed out based on grades. If someone works hard and gets good grades, they can in most cases get enough funding from scholarships, grants and student loans to pay for higher education. Barring that, the military will also pay for it. I'm not arrogant to say you can have higher education if you work hard- I'm being honest. It is completely attainable for people who work for it.
People begging =/= people not being able to eat. People who are on the street do have a high incidence of drug and alcohol use, and many use the money for that. Also, a fairly high percentage of people who are on the street have significant mental health issues- hence, the instances of violence in the shelters. There are normal people who fall on hard times and may have periods of homelessness, it's true- but the majority of people who are chronically homeless have other issues, and would not be helped by a higher minimum wage. Also, homeless people are generally unemployed. Higher minimum wages wouldn't help them. You're comparing apples and oranges.
I understand you're quite young, and have never gone through the process of trying to find a job, trying to make ends meet on a very low income, exploring the options you have to pay for college. I have. It's hard for you to have the same perspective as I do, since I know for a fact you can eat on a food budget of $25/week, without government assistance, because I did it when I was trying to start a business. I know for a fact that you can find a room to rent for $350/month, with utilities, which is more than covered by minimum wage, because I've done it. You're speaking from conjecture, I'm speaking from experience.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The biggest problem with that is that in order for that to work effectively, the government would have to control the cost of cheap apartments. As everyone is getting the same amount of money, the baseline changes from $0 to $150 and people who own the apartments will raise the price from there to take advantage of the demand.
Yes. When I talk about the cheap apartments, I'm talking about public housing, owned and constructed by the government, the bare minimum standard. The rest of the market can adapt as they see fit.
The government owns and controls schools, prisons, libraries, etc.. If it's just about funding, they could just as easily run a PPP project to construct housing blocks just as they do for train lines, airports, power stations, etc..
I mean, I live in a city where it's an oddity not to find at least one person that's been reduced to begging. Even homeless shelters are easier to visualize then actualize, I've heard tons of stories of brutality and violence. Sure they're supposedly available to everyone, but in actuality I definitely think there are many who slip through the cracks.
What I've found, from the couple of homeless people that I've spoken to, those that are living on the streets and begging are usually people who are avoiding the government, and are purposely pushing away the support services that are available to them. They may have overstayed their visas, they may be criminals, they may be drug addicts who don't want to be monitored. In almost all cases, it's a conscious choice they're making to avoid support, and as such, I don't have any real sympathy for them.
And the military is not conducive for mental health. More than half the people I have known in the military left. With anxiety and social disorders some even developed life threatening depression. Beyond the mental everyone I know left with back and knee problems.
Not everybody in the military is a front-line grunt, you know. Engineering education, aviation, human resources, there are plenty of other areas where people can contribute.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Heckler
Not everybody in the military is a front-line grunt, you know. Engineering education, aviation, human resources, there are plenty of other areas where people can contribute.
This is mostly true, but anyone in the military could at any moment be transferred to a front-lines position. I worked a pretty "safe" job, but I knew a few people who were transferred to combat units in Afghanistan when it was the Navy's turn to take over security duty, out of the blue. None of them expected to be sent, as they considered themselves to be "high value" enough to keep off the front lines.
I think different forms of public service would be healthy, our culture could use a rite of passage after high school (like two years of service), but I do think its unfortunate that the "easiest" way to do this now is adding your name to the roster of available combatants.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Hampton
1) Actually, minimum wage does vary from state to state in the US, and tends to be higher in areas with a higher cost of living. And, I have lived all over the country, and I have always found affordable housing. If you really live in an area where a single room is $600/month, you need to move out of the city and into the outlaying areas. After all, if you have a minimum wage job, it's not like you're not going to find a place willing to match your salary.
2) I have already said that the medical issue is separate from the rest of these issues, because the insurance system has artificially inflated the prices above what most people can pay. The resolution to that is not to take money from other people to pay those exorbitant prices, but to do away with the insurance system and force pricing back down to a reasonable level commensurate with normal supply and demand.
3) How can you know "so many" people who got valedictorian, when there's one valedictorian per graduating class? Really? I know I personally am not a member of any minority and am not disabled, and my grades were good but not amazing, and I got a half scholarship to my college and took out loans for the rest. Do they know that to recieve scholarships they have to apply for them? I call BS on that- no one comes out of high school with a 4.0 and can't find a single scholarship. And for most people, student loans can cover what scholarships can't.
And if you don't want to serve in the military, there are other non-combat service organizations that can help with college.
http://www.americorps.gov/for_individuals/benefits/ccraa.asp
I find it interesting that you're not asking for affordable schooling, but free schooling. Guess what- life isn't free. If you want to throw up flimsy excuses as to why you can't have it, then feel free. But people who are actually trying to get into college are finding what they need. If you don't want to pay for it through loans, and you don't want to work for it by getting good grades or joining the military, and you're not really dedicated enough to even do the research to find out about available scholarships, then I think that the minimum wage bracket is the perfect place for you to find a job on par with your work ethic and the level of ability you offer.
P.S. And I'm sure all of your friends who spent time serving their country would love to know you consider them semi-insane cripples. As would all of the wowheaders who have done the same, and the last 3 generations of men in my family who were in the armed forces.
Edit: And as much as people are focusing on "minimum wage jobs", I think they forget that there are a lot of jobs out there that don't require more than a high school degree, that do pay more than minimum wage. My brothers had jobs in high school, as pharmacy assistants, that paid more than minimum wage. I've seen numerous customer service positions paying 2-3 dollars more than minimum wage, and the requirements are a good, positive attitude and the ability to deal well with people. I know people who work construction, masonry, glass installation, etc., who got all of their training on the job and make $15-25 per hour. You don't need to have college to make more than minimum wage- a willingness to do physical labor, or a good attitude and professional demeanor can land you jobs well above minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are really jobs that require no skill, no effort and not a particularly professional presentation. I can't really think of anyone I know, with or without a high school degree, that's making minimum wage and isn't, like, 16.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Pikeyboy
Currently, we do have a graduated income tax in the US on a federal level, so that the more you make the higher percentage of your income goes to the government. We do have property taxes, which asks people with more assets to pay an anual fee to help support the community. And a lot of government money goes into funding higher education, providing scholarships, etc. Everything you outlined, they already do. And I'm not arguing against that- i think it's a good idea, a great way to make sure hard-working and talented people get training according to their skill level.
The more money you make, the more you contribute, and that's a good thing. What I am against is this idea that you should be limited in how much you make, and after a certain point there's no more reason for you to be productive or re-invest because you will make a 0% return on your investment. That's pointless, will slow down growth and cost people jobs. I'm trying to point out how an increase in a minimum wage by X amount won't actually give them double the buying power that they have now, but just make the economy fluctuate for a while before settling into basically the same status quo.
I'm not saying that people who make a lot shouldn't contribute a lot. I'm just pointing out the flaws in logic of people saying they should have a limit on what they could make. I'm also pointing out to all the people who say that there is nothing in place right now to provide for basic standards of living or continuing education, all of the things that are actually in place. And, as I linked before, there are non-military government programs that will help people to pay for college, so it doesn't have to be military. There is a lot available already, and people seem to be disregarding anything that asks them to pay anything back, to put forth extra effort, to work or get good grades to attain. They don't want to hear about anything that isn't someone handing them a check on a silver plate and saying "Here, you obviously deserve this for just being you. Don't worry about earning it through work or grades, don't worry about paying it back. Don't worry about putting forth the extra effort to get a job that takes more than the most minimal effort. We'll just take care of you."
If you're someone who would make a good doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc., wouldn't you be someone who puts forth effort in your studies, and would get good grades in high school? Those people already have a lot in place to help with college. They'll achieve their goals. The people who won't are the ones who got mediocre grades in high school, and all of a sudden want someone to pay for their college in the hopes that they'll actually take it seriously now.
If the difference between your minimum wage job, and the job up the block that pays three dollars more an hour, is the ability to smile, go a little out of your way to provide good customer service, and present and speak professionally, and you're not willing to do even that much to earn a better standard of living, why should the rest of society go out of their way to give you more for doing the bare minimum.
Post by
Heckler
What I am against is this idea that you should be limited in how much you make, and after a certain point there's no more reason for you to be productive or re-invest because you will make a 0% return on your investment.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to about placing a limit (either the people who are claiming that there should be a law, or the people who are claiming that the top-tier marginal rate should be higher).
Personally, I think 90% on the top tier (which existed in 1950) is a tad excessive (repaying the WW2 debt through increased taxation was pretty important to the country in the 50's, and that's the biggest reason it went over so well -- interesting that repaying the Iraq and Afghanistan debt through taxation doesn't seem important at all today). But the modern 28 to 35% is insultingly low. A high top-tier income tax rate does not discourage investment, in fact it encourages it -- money that is never taken out of an investment does not count as personal income, so when a company makes $300 million in profit, and the CEO only pays himself $3 million (instead of $275 million), that's $297 million that remains invested in the company and
encourages
growth.
I'm not arguing that we should have a 100% income tax at some level of income, just that a more progressive slope on our tax tiers would be helpful and stabilizing to everything except private off-shore bank accounts.
P.S. And I'm sure all of your friends who spent time serving their country would love to know you consider them semi-insane cripples. As would all of the wowheaders who have done the same, and the last 3 generations of men in my family who were in the armed forces.
This is a pretty insensitive thing to say (
completely warping his words
), considering how many people actually
do
leave the military with mental and physical health problems, especially given the current combat environments they are serving in. I'm glad your family members got out unscathed (and I'm glad I did too), but many people don't, sadly. PTSD is a horrible, horrible thing.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Heckler
The several posters have said that there should be a law that anything that you make over a certain dollar amount should just be taken by the government, and that you just legally should be limited in how much you're able to make. This was the agrument I was countering. I agree that a higher percentage at higher income levels is fine, but they shouldn't just take everything after a certain point. If you agree that 90% is too high, then I assume you will also agree that 100% is too high, and agree with me on this point.
As for the comment about the military- they were his words, not mine. He said that he'd have to become a semi-insane cripple to get his free schooling, after he outlined all the damage the military could do. Implying that all or most people who come out of the military are "semi-insane cripples". I agree that's an insensitive thing to say...which was why I was upset he said it and made a comment that his friends would probably be interested to know that he considers them that. I'm not belittling the people who come back with physical disabilities or stress disorders. But they're people, they're not "semi-insane cripples" as Hampton called them. I thought it was a nasty way for him to talk about people who had gotten injured in the line of duty. So, again, I feel like we're in agreement here.
@Pikey
I'm not sure about the situation globally, I will agree. But in the united states there is a lot of financial help available in the form of low-interest loans, grants, scholarships, etc. for people who demonstrate an ability to work hard and get good grades. The people who can't get scholarships are the people who haven't demonstrated any remarkable academic ability in their 12 years of free education. They can still go to college, but since they haven't given the same indication of their ability to work hard and succeed at their profession, it will actually cost them money.
In terms of enjoying what you do, I agree that people who do so will continue to work at what they enjoy as long as the salary is reasonable. The thing that people fail to realize is that people don't generally make million dollar paychecks. They make that kind of money by investing in a business, and hoping that the profits are enough to make the investment worthwhile. It's not about a job that they do or do not enjoy. It's about them taking money that they already have, and being willing to risk it by using it to fund a business in the hopes that the reward will be worth the risk. If you have already made your limit for the year, and someone comes to you and says "I want to open a factory in my town that will provide 35,000 jobs, but I need investment capital to get started", you have no reason to invest with them. The best case scenario is that the person takes your money, and does well, and you won't get a thing out of it. Worst case scenario is that you'll lose all the money you invested. So someone who normally would have invested 100 million dollars a year in start up companies, new projects of existing companies, new inventions, etc. would have no reason to give anyone his money if there was zero benefit to him, and a decent chance he'd lose it all.
Post by
Heckler
The several posters have said that there should be a law that anything that you make over a certain dollar amount should just be taken by the government, and that you just legally should be limited in how much you're able to make. This was the agrument I was countering I agree that a higher percentage at higher income levels is fine. If you agree that 90% is too high, then I assume you will also agree that 100% is too high, and agree with me on this point.
Yes, I do agree. I'm wondering if you agree that 35% is too low ? It should be noted that the 91% rate in 1953 was on income above $5 million, which is well over $200 million in today's dollars. I wonder how many people would think it an injustice if we imposed a 70% tax on
personal income
over $200 million (with proper scaling increases on all tiers below that as well, I'm not saying just institute a new bracket, I'm saying increase the slope across the board).
I'm not belittling the people who come back with physical disabilities or stress disorders. But they're people, they're not "semi-insane cripples" as Hampton called them. I thought it was a nasty way for him to talk about people who had gotten injured in the line of duty. So, again, I feel like we're in agreement here.
Actually, I think we are too, I had only read hampton1's paragraph, I missed the last line where he used that phrase -- I thought that was your phrase. I think he deserved to be called out for that, and I'll join your condemnation of it.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm not sure where to draw the line i numbers, but I don't think something over 35% on a $200 million income would be unreasonable- I'd probably say up to 50% would be fine. But I think there should be some attention paid to the difference between money that is earned, but immediately re-invested, and money that is being held for personal use. If someone is earning 200 million, and 180 million of that is going back into his various investments and stimulating the economy, creating jobs, etc., I'd think the percentage should be less on that money, or the taxation should wait until they actually withdraw the money for personal use. IMO, providing a company with 1 million dollars they can use to pay employees with is a pretty good use of the money.
Post by
Squishalot
It's only not unreasonable until you realise that what you're suggesting is taxing a person an additional
30 million dollars
.
I disagree that there should be a need to tax that much for anything. Governments should not be there to enforce wealth redistribution. They should be providing equality of services at whatever cost is required, not trying to create equality of wealth. Hence why I think flat levies for specific services makes more sense than a catch-all progressive income tax that penalises subjectively, as long as you've got the minimum services support network underneath it.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.