No one wants to work, or no one wants to work for 13 an hour

Post Reply New Topic

^ So lower taxes don't necessarily mean people are left with more money for living... because other factors may be way greater.

Sorry. That doesn't follow. Lower taxes always leave people with more money for living. If one person makes $50,000 and $4000 is taken out of that persons paycheck, and the next year tax rates are lowered and that person makes $50,000 plus only pays $2000 in taxes, does that person receive more money for living? Of course!

If you are taking about inflation and the failure of real wages to keep up, those things have nothing to do with taxes.

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output." --Milton Friedman

^ That does not account for other factors like costs of basic needs like housing or healthcare (AFAIK, USA is the only developed country without universal healthcare), availability of public transport, zoning rules, etc.

The options for living for low-earners depend on those way more than they do on federal taxes. Unlike taxes, your rent or medical needs can easily exceed 100% of your earnings.

Nope. A government funded by high taxes can provide services that can vastly lower what would otherwise be the overall cost of living. For example, a city funded by sufficient taxes can provide good enough public transportation that people don't need cars, which would be much more expensive than the taxes.

I think it depends on what country a person is in. In some countries, people on higher wages are taxed more, whilst there is a 'tax free' personal allowance of 'x' amount before a person gets taxed on the lower end of the earnings spectrum.

Conceivably, taxing higher earning folk might go towards better public services for poorer folk, thus improving the finances of poorer folk. Taxes are usually progressive in most western countries, meaning that many poor people don't pay any on income, or very little, whilst reaping the rewards of public services funded by the taxes of higher earners and any debt a country is willing to accrue to foot the public finance bill.

I lived in a high state. No toll roads, great schools with a ton of choices, public tranit that could connect to multiple counties for $7/day including trains (free if under 18), library system that was linked to other systems and could ship books, min wage $15, broccoli heads $4.

I now live in a low state. Its $14 in tolls just to get to the doctor. Public transit is non existant, costs $4 with minors being $2 and only covers a few streets. No county transfers. Library system is painfully small and underfunded with constant book bans. Min wage $7.50, broccoli heads $4.

I lived better with less in that expensive state.

You're either a poor lawyer or you're selling something you know is false.

First off, $2,000 is inflation adjusted to $23500 that is not how much that person would be making if we hadn't incentivized the hoarding of wealth. The number would be much higher than that, as there'd be less downward pressure on wages due to collusion. The number would be closer to $54,080. I don't think that an apples to apples comparison is really asking too much, especially when we're arguing about measures that would discourage such hoarding of wealth at the top.

Secondly, you're ignoring the reality that there was a lot of tax burden shifted from the federal government that relies primarily on income taxes, capital gains and various business taxes to the states that use more property and sales taxes to fund operations.

And lastly, you assume without any reason that businesses wouldn't be able to get funding without venture capital. That is definitely false. Small investors have been pooling their money together to fund businesses for way before venture capital became a thing. And unlike venture capitalists, they actually cared about the soundness of the underlying business. They weren't propping up failing companies hoping to be able to hang on long enough for regulatory capture to kick in or to find some other sucker to sell to.

In order to finish a building project, we have to bring in a "Finisher".  Our fixed budget will not allow for this unless we lay off two ordinary workers.  If we do not follow through, then the project will not be completed.

Each of our present workers has at least one other person dependent on them for income.  Do we go by age, size of family, time-on-the-job, or skill level?  This is like the Trolley Problem, but with only one track.

You guys just need to learn how vulture capitalism venture capitalism works. If the system isn't rigged to return obscene profits for those who play with money and contribute nothing to society they're going to stop contributing to society.

Whaaat? You're saying its more that red vs blue??

Complete sarcasm but I find it astonishing people still think its the government in charge (in the US anyway.)

That's more or less what he seems to be going with. Never expect those that are paid not to understand something to understand it.

In this case, there's an argument to be made that venture capitalists just slow the process by increasing and encouraging corruption. The thing about venture capital is that it doesn't necessarily reward sound business strategies, it supports buying startups that have the potential to blow up by exploiting the system in antisocial ways. And the stuff that startups engage in to try and attract venture capital is shocking. After all profit is profit and there are only so many profitable businesses out there to buy.