Universal Minimum Income

[whitestone]

the problem cannot ever be understood until it is seen. Forgive me Knight for using your example but,,as you said "72,000.00 per month" which is 72,000.00x12x 20 years=17 million,280 thousand you expect to earn across 20 years. The problem is that this is reasonable but at the same time 17 million 280 thousand dollars in 2015 is chickenfeed,,,

 

[Traditio]

So the question will become, what to the employers do? Will they adjust the amount they pay you downwards so that your government salary plus your company salary equals what you make now?

The government should definitely do this. Military persons, policemen, etc. should be paid less by $24,000 since they'd be receiving that anyways. Likewise, social security and various government entitlements could be drastically reduced, if not abolished entirely. [For the sake of fairness, all persons who have worked 20+ years, upon turning 60 years of age, could receive an additional $6,000 per year of tax free income.]

In principle, private employers could do the same...if their employees are willing to tolerate it.

In a lot of cases? That might not happen. "Oh, Mr. McDonalds manager, you want to grossly decrease my pay? Ok. Cool. I'll just stop working for you."

 

[glassjester]

So the question would become, what to the employers do? Will they adjust the amount they pay you downwards so that your government salary plus your company salary equals what you make now?

No. They'd have to be more competitive with the salaries they offer employees because employees would depend on them less.

 

[Traditio]

No. They'd have to be more competitive with the salaries they offer employees because employees would not depend on them depend on them less.

Fixed that for you.

And yes. That's exactly my point. That's why I am saying that minimum wage laws could be abolished.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The government should definitely do this. Military persons, policemen, etc. should be paid less by $24,000 since they'd be receiving that anyways. Likewise, social security and various government entitlements could be drastically reduced.

In principle, private employers could do the same...if their employees are willing to tolerate it.

In a lot of cases? That might not happen. "Oh, Mr. McDonalds manager, you want to grossly decrease my pay? Ok. Cool. I'll just stop working for you."

So Mr. McDonalds manager goes across the street to another employer only to discover that that employer has done exactly the same thing. If all the employers are doing the same thing they employees have no choice to accept it. And it really doesn't hurt them because their gross income doesn't change. Their net income will be reduced due to increased taxes.

 

[Traditio]

So Mr. McDonalds manager goes across the street to another employer only to discover that that employer has done exactly the same thing. If all the employers are doing the same thing they employees have no choice to accept it. And it really doesn't hurt them because their gross income doesn't change. Their net income will be reduced due to increased taxes.

The employees would have a choice. They could choose not to work at McDonalds. Minimum wage employees accept their positions because they need money and they have no other options. All of a sudden, these people would not need money. They'd have the option simply not to work.

But ultimately, and here's the rub, that's probably going to happen eventually anyways. With greater technological increases, chances are, are McDonalds, etc. really going to be hiring in 20 years? Will they even need people to run the registers?

 

[CabinetMaker]

No. They'd have to be more competitive with the salaries they offer employees because employees would depend on them less.

More competitive than the competition. If the competition is all doing the same thing, and they will (accountants), I can still be very competitive and a lower amount.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The employees would have a choice. They could choose not to work at McDonalds. Minimum wage employees accept their positions because they need money and they have no other options. All of a sudden, these people would not need money. They'd have the option simply not to work.

Hail to the ultimate welfare state!

 

[Traditio]

Hail to the ultimate welfare state!

You're slapping a label on something and saying "boo."

You understand that this isn't an argument?

 

[whitestone]

It's a really easy math problem that is "the answer is not the problem,the solution is",,,

That is if we pay 24,000.00 per year to all then if they make 4 million,800 thousand dollars across a 20 year period of time how is it that they are in poverty?

 

[glassjester]

More competitive than the competition. If the competition is all doing the same thing, and they will (accountants), I can still be very competitive and a lower amount.

This problem would very quickly right itself, as soon as even one single employer needed to hire another employee.

All of a sudden, he's bidding more than the rest.

 

[GuySmiley]

You misunderstood me. Dude makes $1.5 million dollars. 90% taxes on all income over one million. That's $450,000 in taxes. On the amount below a million? Dunno.



A cursory google search tells me that the total income of all Americans in the US, in 2011, was 12.95 trillion dollars.

What you are trying to tell me, Cabinet Maker, is that there's not enough money for everyone to have an income of $24,000 a year. In point of fact, let us assume that the actual income there is to go around is $13 trillion. If everyone had an income of $24,000, by your own admission, that only comes out to, at most, in between 7-8 trillion dollars. By my reckoning, there's still $5-6 trillion left to spare.

In point of fact, there's plenty of money to go around, presupposing that there is an equitable and just distribution. Even supposing an additional $4 trillion for other expanses like healthcare, schools, etc. (and I doubt this would be the actual expense), that's only comes out to $12 trillion.

So say your new program costs $7 trillion. And lets say other services cost only $3 trillion. (Currently all tax revenue adds up to $6.1 trillion, and we spend more than that, but anyway). So the government needs $10 trillion per year. Total GDP is $12.95 trillion, so you need an average tax rate of 77% on all income to make that.

If you don't want to tax people making $40k at 77%, you are going to need to tax people making $1 million at higher than 77%, probably much higher like in the 90's, because there are so fewer of them, and not just for what they make over $1 million.

 

[glassjester]

you are going to need to tax people making $1 million at higher than 77%, probably much higher like in the 90's

Isn't that what he proposed?

 

[whitestone]

That's the problem though,if we all go to Walmart and unstrap our wheelbarrows off our cars and open our trunks and load up all our money and go inside and buy a week or so of groceries well we can say we are millionaires,but,,,the solution is making money worth something.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You're slapping a label on something and saying "boo."

You understand that this isn't an argument?

Yes, you are arguing for the creation of the ultimate welfare state.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This problem would very quickly right itself, as soon as even one single employer needed to hire another employee.

All of a sudden, he's bidding more than the rest.

More is a highly relative term. $16.00/hour is more than $15.00/per hour. A $1,000 per year more sounds great but that is only $0.48 per hour more. The labor market will balance around a new labor clearing price. I can almost guarantee you that that price from the employer will be lower than what they are paying now because you can settle for less.

 

[glassjester]

More is a highly relative term. $16.00/hour is more than $15.00/per hour. A $1,000 per year more sounds great but that is only $0.48 per hour more. The labor market will balance around a new labor clearing price. I can almost guarantee you that that price from the employer will be lower than what they are paying now because you can settle for less.

Right. You could settle for 0.

If they're not paying what you think the work is worth, you walk.

 

[whitestone]

It's all an afterthought,,If I sell you a house for 100,000.00 and you give me 10,000.00 as a down payment and pay 700.00 a month to me for 12 months thats 8,400.00+d.p.=18,400.00 if you do this for 5 years then you've paid me 52,000.00 for a house that when the economy goes south I can repossess from you that I now own and only paid 48,000.00 for and why,because you paid the rest for me.

So if this is so,will they fix the economy or let it crumble so they can repossess all the houses they have financed? You are all stumbling around in the reasoning through how to fix the economy when it has always been in their best interest to crumble it to so that in the end they own it,and all the money you gave them in the struggle,,,it will crumble,not be fixed there is no profit in fixing it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Right. You could settle for 0.

If they're not paying what you think the work is worth, you walk.

Walk where is the question. If the job is worth 50k$ per year in the fair market and 24k$ of that comes from the government, why should I, or any other employer, pay you any more than 26k$?

Said a bit differently, if all the employers are offering to pay 26k$, where would you walk to?

 

[glassjester]

Walk where is the question. If the job is worth 50k$ per year in the fair market and 24k$ of that comes from the government, why should I, or any other employer, pay you any more than 26k$?

Said a bit differently, if all the employers are offering to pay 26k$, where would you walk to?

Nowhere, if you're content with making just enough to pay rent and buy groceries. Isn't that the point of the universal minimum income?