The real reason the government wants a 15 dollar minimum wage

a reply to: matafuchs

Right now you pay about 28% of the your salary to income tax for the Federal Government. This is why they want to raise the minimum wage. To collect more taxes.

I agree. And it's not just those to receive a higher minimum wage, but every employee above them who gets a raise to make it "fair."

I have long advocated for a proportional wage ratio similar to Ben & Jerry's pay model: The highest paid employee cannot make more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. So, for example, using a 200% ratio (just because it's easy to calculate), if the lowest paid employee makes $50,000 per year, the highest paid employee cannot make more than $100,000 per year.

In the interests of "freedom," we could tie it in with the incorporation codes, so any company that wants the perks and privileges and entitlements of incorporation would be required to pay a proportional wage. Private businesses could pay as they will, but will have to compete with the corporate pay scale. Or, perhaps, have a reduced tax rate for anyone who chooses to pay proportionally, and a higher rate for those who don't.

Of course, we should also eliminate the personal individual income tax on earned income in accordance with natural law and natural rights, in which we all have an inalienable right to the fruits of labor, and owe no one nothing for the work we do to make a living for ourselves and our families. Income taxes can come from corporate profits, which are paid by the consumers -- we the people -- anyway, and from unearned income such as interest and dividends, etc., as well as tarrifs and whatnot.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Actually I think its something a bit more depressing.


Fact is the way technology is moving, more a more low skilled jobs are becoming obsolete.

People that 30 years ago who would find good work in a factory that would support them are now stuck in retail and service industry jobs, and even those are starting to go.

20 years time you will hit a point were that are 300 million + people who need work but only 20-50 million jobs that can actually support a person.

This right here is the biggest problem with the US economy. We have a class of people who are essentially worthless to businesses right now. Unless this gets addressed systematically, we are going to be in a world of hurt.

I don't think the answer is arbitrarily raising the minimum wage though. What is happening is we have a confluence of problems that are making it hard for the lower classes to compete.

Globalism has moved a lot of the higher paid manufacturing jobs overseas. It used to be if you dicked around in school, etc that you could still get a decent job driving widgets. You'd make enough to buy a house, boat, etc and retire. This is no longer the case as global competition has forced the wages down and overseas for these low skilled jobs. As such, lower skilled workers are penalized more for being lower skilled.

Further complicating this is that our education system no longer teaches people vocational skills so that they can learn a trade.

You literally have people who not only can barely read and perform basic mathematics "graduating" from public high schools, but they also can't do something as simple as change a bicycle tire much less learn how to be mechanics, plumbers, and other tradesmen.

So if that isn't bad enough, we have an open borders policy that is bringing over hordes of just as illiterate foreigners from south of the border who will work even cheaper which is further pushing down wages for the least skilled. So not only do we have an overabundance of low skilled American born workers, our politicians are bringing over even dumber immigrants which is really screwing up the supply & demand imbalance by putting even more pressure on low skilled wages.

a reply to: Boadicea

Why should there be a proportional wage? People are paid what they are worth to the company. Period. Wages are not linear. Should Will Smith only make 10x's what production assistant makes? Should Kobe Bryant make only 10x what the bench warmer makes?

Wages are a function of supply and demand. Nothing more.

a reply to: Edumakated

That probably needs to change.

a reply to: Edumakated

There's plenty of skilled tradesman who can't find work.

Many immigrants are highly skilled in a trade.

a reply to: Edumakated

Why should there be a proportional wage? People are paid what they are worth to the company. Period. Wages are not linear. Should Will Smith only make 10x's what production assistant makes? Should Kobe Bryant make only 10x what the bench warmer makes?

Wages are a function of supply and demand. Nothing more.

Because money is created out of thin air by government... and government is required to serve the best interests of all people in whatever they do... and because virtually all natural resources needed to sustain life and health have been monetized by government... therefore, money must serve the best interests of all.

If you or Will or The Rapist has a problem with that, don't work for money. Don't use money at all. Return to hunting and gathering and bartering. It's your choice. All the same to me.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

There's plenty of skilled tradesman who can't find work.

Where are they? I know companies that would kill for certified machinists or welders.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
WAKE UP!!!


One last thing. A rule of economics states that all costs are borne by the Consumer. So an increase in the Minimum Wage to $15 per hour would raise the cost of living proportionally resulting in no gain in buying power. This would leave us right back where we started from.

What rule of economics is this?

originally posted by: CantStandIt

Not only are there the overt Income, Social Security, Medicare and now Health Insurance mandates directly administered by the IRS.

There are also the 'covert taxes'... things required by law but not called a tax because a taxing authority doesn't administer them. Things like...
Auto insurance, if you drive.
Homeowners insurance, if you have a mortgage.
Flood insurance, if you live in a designated flood plain.
Principal mortgage insurance, if you have a mortgage with less than 20% equity in the house.

Those things aren't "covert taxes." They're not taxes at all and in most of the categories you listed, the Feds don't even play a role.

There are no federal regulations mandating that you purchase auto insurance, whether you own an automobile or not. If you can find one, I'd like to see it. Auto insurance mandates are state issued.

As far as I can tell, (unless you have a FHA or VA loan) there is no federal requirement for you to have homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage, that requirement comes from the private lending institution and it's there to protect their investment in your home.

There is no federal mandate to purchase flood insurance if you live in a flood plain. (Again unless you have a FHA or VA loan) I know because I live in one, I own my home and I don't have it. Again, if you have a mortgage, it very well could be a requirement of the lending institution to protect their investment.

Principal mortgage insurance is the same way. Unless you have a FHA loan, any requirement that you must have it is coming from your private lending institution.

Now, if I could just get those Feds off my back life would be utopian!

Sounds like most of your discomfort is actually coming from banking institutions and state laws, not from the IRS or the Feds.

The $15 minimum wage is a win/win for both the worker and the federal govt. and it's not like they're imposing it overnight.

At the very least, I doubt the sky will be falling because of it.

a reply to: CantStandIt

Yes government revenue goes up due to any taxable economic revenue but that still doesn't mean that insurance is a tax.

On the subject of insurance yes some people (possibly lots) will try and scam the system to maximise their payouts v cost. Companies very well aware of this and will of course try and minimise payments v cost. This is why despite being fairly left win I think governments should stay the hell out off the insurance game as the same rules don't apply when it is a endless pot of money.

Government mandated insurance is perfectly acceptable when there is an external risk, Motor insurance and construction being the ones that most obviously spring to mind. If you don't want to insure yourself fair enough but being mandated to make sure others are covered is a reasonable step.

On health care I absolutely agree, mandatory health cover is tax by any other name and seems to me to be the worst of both worlds between private care and proper universal coverage.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: CantStandIt

Not only are there the overt Income, Social Security, Medicare and now Health Insurance mandates directly administered by the IRS.

There are also the 'covert taxes'... things required by law but not called a tax because a taxing authority doesn't administer them. Things like...
Auto insurance, if you drive.
Homeowners insurance, if you have a mortgage.
Flood insurance, if you live in a designated flood plain.
Principal mortgage insurance, if you have a mortgage with less than 20% equity in the house.

Those things aren't "covert taxes." They're not taxes at all and in most of the categories you listed, the Feds don't even play a role.

There are no federal regulations mandating that you purchase auto insurance, whether you own an automobile or not. If you can find one, I'd like to see it. Auto insurance mandates are state issued.

As far as I can tell, (unless you have a FHA or VA loan) there is no federal requirement for you to have homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage, that requirement comes from the private lending institution and it's there to protect their investment in your home.

There is no federal mandate to purchase flood insurance if you live in a flood plain. (Again unless you have a FHA or VA loan) I know because I live in one, I own my home and I don't have it. Again, if you have a mortgage, it very well could be a requirement of the lending institution to protect their investment.

Principal mortgage insurance is the same way. Unless you have a FHA loan, any requirement that you must have it is coming from your private lending institution.

Now, if I could just get those Feds off my back life would be utopian!

Sounds like most of your discomfort is actually coming from banking institutions and state laws, not from the IRS or the Feds.

The $15 minimum wage is a win/win for both the worker and the federal govt. and it's not like they're imposing it overnight.

At the very least, I doubt the sky will be falling because of it.

Many of the covert taxes the OP is referring to are both state and federal. In many cases, they may be originating at the state level, but may actually be driven by federal regulations. For example, in my job I have to pay all sorts of yearly licensing fees. It cost me $2,000 this year in state licensing fees alone. The states are the ones imposing the fees that I pay, but the regulation saying I have to be licensed by the state is Federal.

The point is that there are a lot of direct and indirect taxes that everyone pays that diminishes their earnings. The OP was just lamenting that if people weren't paying so much in taxes they wouldn't need half the government programs we have now because they could actually afford to pay their own way.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: CantStandIt

Not only are there the overt Income, Social Security, Medicare and now Health Insurance mandates directly administered by the IRS.

There are also the 'covert taxes'... things required by law but not called a tax because a taxing authority doesn't administer them. Things like...
Auto insurance, if you drive.
Homeowners insurance, if you have a mortgage.
Flood insurance, if you live in a designated flood plain.
Principal mortgage insurance, if you have a mortgage with less than 20% equity in the house.

Those things aren't "covert taxes." They're not taxes at all and in most of the categories you listed, the Feds don't even play a role.

There are no federal regulations mandating that you purchase auto insurance, whether you own an automobile or not. If you can find one, I'd like to see it. Auto insurance mandates are state issued.

As far as I can tell, (unless you have a FHA or VA loan) there is no federal requirement for you to have homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage, that requirement comes from the private lending institution and it's there to protect their investment in your home.

There is no federal mandate to purchase flood insurance if you live in a flood plain. (Again unless you have a FHA or VA loan) I know because I live in one, I own my home and I don't have it. Again, if you have a mortgage, it very well could be a requirement of the lending institution to protect their investment.

Principal mortgage insurance is the same way. Unless you have a FHA loan, any requirement that you must have it is coming from your private lending institution.

Now, if I could just get those Feds off my back life would be utopian!

Sounds like most of your discomfort is actually coming from banking institutions and state laws, not from the IRS or the Feds.

The $15 minimum wage is a win/win for both the worker and the federal govt. and it's not like they're imposing it overnight.

At the very least, I doubt the sky will be falling because of it.

The point is that there are a lot of direct and indirect taxes that everyone pays that diminishes their earnings. The OP was just lamenting that if people weren't paying so much in taxes they wouldn't need half the government programs we have now because they could actually afford to pay their own way.

I think most of those regulations probably came about precisely because of the fact that, when the opportunity to opt out is given, (for the most part) people can't afford to pay their own way and some lender or auto accident victim gets left "holding the bag."

For instance, here in Texas you don't have to carry auto insurance if you can prove you have adequate resources to cover any liabilities that may arise from an accident of which you are at fault.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The rule of common sense. A company is in business to make a profit. The selling price of their product includes all of the costs incurred in making that product plus the profit. If any of the costs of making that product increase, the selling price must also increase.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Where are they? I know companies that would kill for certified machinists or welders.

I think the "certified" part is the stickler...

I wish you were in AZ -- I'd ask for some of those company names for my husband!

a reply to: onequestion

I'll bet if they start paying a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage those gas prices won't stay down for long.

originally posted by: onequestion

If you haven't been paying attention gas prices are dropping because of global consumption being down.

Down because no one can afford anything.

Fantasy land yay! I love fantasy land!

This is real logic. Economists have been pointing out that consumerism would rise with a minimum wage hike, resulting in profits for companies that would end up selling more goods. It would also cause people to get off of government programs such as food stamps and subsidies.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Right now you pay about 28% of the your salary to income tax for the Federal Government. This is why they want to raise the minimum wage. To collect more taxes. They don't care about you and I mean the DNC and GOP. They want 15 bucks an hour and that would double the taxes collected from minimum wage earners in the US.

Even at $15/hour there are no taxes to collect from them. The bottom 50% in the US (which minimum wage will qualify as, at any level) collectively own less than 1% of the total wealth in the country. That means they have less than 1% of the total taxable assets and less than 1% of the purchasing power. Increasing the wages for those on the bottom does quite literally nothing to revenue in the way that you're describing.

The first 3 months of Fiscal Year 2016 the Federal Government collected 765 BILLION dollars. We could build a wall around every home in America with that. 5k per tax payer was collected on average. However, we still have a homeless issue, vets without proper healthcare and 1 in 5 children who do not have a meal all day.

We could, it's not even that expensive. However, we have a large part of society and by extension our government who don't believe in handouts. They feel that giving people food and homes diminishes the country by making life too easy. It's not a new sentiment either, people have had this belief since the beginning of the country. For example in the late 1890's there was a famine in Texas, and the President specifically spoke out and banned any federal aid going to feed the residents (in the form of sending food), believing instead that people needed to band together and rely on their neighbors. What ended up happening instead was mass starvation where people contemplated eating their neighbors.

You work for 75 cents on the dollar. Add Health care and it become about 60 cents per hour. How can someone survive. Don't tell me about a living wage, make a flat 10% tax across the board. If someone makes a ton of money they can still pay 10%, no exemptions, and they have more money to expand and hire more employees. They are so hindered with regulations and having to pay penalties from the ACA as well as making employees part time to reduce costs.

That unfortunately, is not how economics works. Businesses hire people to serve their needs, when they don't need more employees it doesn't matter what sort of incentives you give to hire someone. Adding another employee is either profitable or it's not, and a couple thousand in tax breaks in either direction doesn't change that math.

If you want to end unemployment look to reducing the work week so that what jobs are left are spread among everyone. The jobs that were lost aren't coming back. Our economy doesn't need them to function.

I like how a lot of the arguments I'm seeing are, 'They want everyone to make more money so that they can take more money!'

It's a little counter-intuitive but, whatever, it's funny.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Cost of living is not as big a deal without high taxes. If i make 15 dollars an hour full time that is 31k a year. At the current tax rate that is 9k in taxes. Make that a flat 10% makes that 3k. That is 6k that can be put back in the economy or used to purchase a house. Now, these people are stuck renting because they cannot get ahead.

6k does not buy a house. If you can't fully pay a home off within 5 years you shouldn't be purchasing that home. If you assume a $100,000 home that means you need to be able to pay off $20,000 per year (probably closer to $23,000 between interest and fees). Since your mortgage shouldn't be more than about 30% of your income that means an income of $77,000/year. That's being generous too, more ideally your home should cost no more than 1 years salary.

The idea of home ownership for people at lower income levels has long since vanished and a lower tax rate isn't going to change that. Instead it actually puts home ownership further out of reach. Remember that your taxes are actually buying things, they're buying roads, defense, infrastructure, health care, and all the rest. If you remove tax funding for those things they still need to be paid for and that creates regressive per use models that disproportionately effect those at lower income in much the same way that a speeding ticket means less and less as you earn more money, until you can eventually buy your way around the speed limit if you choose.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: onequestion

And why has the cost of living surpassed income?

Because CPI which is used to calculate the rate of inflation hasn't been in line with reality for 35 years. Inflation and thus cost of living adjustments have been calculated at one rate while market forces determine the cost of goods at another rate. These two things are supposed to be equal but they aren't. As a result wages have declined at about 2-3% per year for 35 years. 2.5% over 35 years ultimately puts wages very far off from what they should be.