A minimum income, not wage, is a fairer way to distribute wealth

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2013 8:09 PM GMT
    An idea that has currency - and an idea that could be supported by most on the left and right. Unfortunately it means less government bureaucracy and regulation.

    http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/08/a-minimum-income-not-wage-is-a-fairer-way-to-distribute-wealth/

    The alternative to the minimum wage is a minimum income: paid not by employers, but by the state.

    The minimum wage is typical of so many bad policies, in so far as it attempts to solve a distributional problem — some people’s incomes are too low — with an instrument designed for a very different purpose. Wages are a kind of price: their role is to connect buyers and sellers in the market for labour in such a way as to ensure there are no shortages and surpluses. Stop them from doing that, and shortages and surpluses you will get.

    Fixing wages and prices in this way isn’t an example of Big Government; it’s rather what I call phoney small government. Part of its appeal is that it appears less interventionist than the alternative, as proposed by that early economist Robin Hood: Take from the rich and give to the poor. But it isn’t. It’s just less effective. Pass a law demanding that employers pay each worker a higher wage than they’d prefer to pay, and they have an easy (and perfectly legal) way to avoid it: hire fewer workers. Whereas the Canada Revenue Agency is rather harder to get around.

    Social obligations should be socially financed. As a collective ideal, distributional justice is ill-suited to being pursued through markets. That’s not what they’re for. Let us stop shunting our responsibility off on others. In place of the minimum wage, let us fix a minimum income.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2013 5:38 PM GMT
    This is a part of the NDP platform, called the Guaranteed Annual Income. An actual experiment was conducted in Fort Dauphin, Manitoba.

    From 1974 through 1978, about 30 per cent of the population of Dauphin was provided with a "mincome," as the guaranteed level of income came to be called.

    "We found that, overall, hospitalizations in Dauphin declined relative to the control group," said Evelyn Forget, professor of community health science at the University of Manitoba. "We also looked at accidents and injuries, and they also declined. You can argue that accident and injury hospitalizations are strongly related to poverty."

    The goal of the program, which cost $17 million, was to find out whether a guaranteed income would improve health and community life. If a household's income dropped below a certain amount, the program would top it up to an income equivalent to the welfare rates at the time.

    'Hospitalizations for mental health issues were down significantly,'
    — Evelyn Forget, researcherThe participants who worked had their supplement reduced 50 cents for every dollar they earned in an attempt to encourage people in the program to look for work.

    Forget has spent three years comparing the administrative health care records of Dauphin's citizens between 1974 and 1978 with those of a control group of people living in similar Manitoba communities at that time.

    She said her research suggests that people appear to live healthier lives when they don't have to worry about poverty.

    "Hospitalizations for mental health issues were down significantly," she said, adding that teenagers stayed in school longer as a result of the initiative.

    The initiative, which started in 1974, was terminated in 1978 as political support for the experiment faded.

    "Politically, there was a concern that if you began a guaranteed annual income, people would stop working and start having large families," Forget said.

    Ron Hikel, the executive director of the Mincome project, is delighted Forget is taking a fresh look at the project's impact.

    'Politically, there was a concern that if you began a guaranteed annual income, people would stop working and start having large families.'
    — Evelyn Forget, researcher"As somebody who devoted three or four years of his life to making this happen, I was disappointed that the data were warehoused," Hikel said.

    Forget has not yet been given access to the 2,000 boxes of data collected by the original Mincome researchers, which contain copies of questionnaires participants filled out and, she believes, transcripts of interviews with the families who took part.

    Hikel, who is now legislative director for U.S. Rep. Eric Massa, said Forget's research is immensely relevant in Canada and the United States. He said he intends to use her analysis as part of the current health-care debate.

    "It has to do with the impact that larger social conditions have on one's health condition and the need for health care," Hikel said.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2013 5:45 PM GMT
    The GAI will be the subject of much discussion at the upcoming biennial NDP convention in Montreal this weekend. I had hoped to sit on that Panel but our delegation already has someone on that Panel; I go onto the less popular ones - constitutional resolutions, and resolutions pertaining to Canada's place in the World. icon_mad.gif LOL


    Everyone wants to be on the panel that deals with the many resolutions calling for the legalisation of maijuana, and the GAI. (the fun debates)icon_lol.gif
  • venusrider

    Posts: 68

    Apr 09, 2013 6:44 PM GMT


    "Unfortunately it means less government bureaucracy and regulation."


    I dont know anything that could be considered "unfortunate" when it comes to less gov.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2013 7:20 PM GMT
    venusrider said

    "Unfortunately it means less government bureaucracy and regulation."


    I dont know anything that could be considered "unfortunate" when it comes to less gov.


    There are those who believe that this would "destroy" jobs that the government has "created".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 4:56 AM GMT
    Show me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3515

    Apr 10, 2013 9:37 AM GMT
    i would like to see, at the minimum, an entire basket of foods that are free, paid for by taxes. you would just go to a government depot and get them.

    potatoes, rice, flour, pasta, baked beans, bread, peanut butter, milk, apples, oranges, a few other things that are unbranded commodities that you can live on if you are poor I think any western country can afford those things.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Apr 10, 2013 10:14 AM GMT
    We don't need giveaways or wealth redistribution, we need to create more wealth. We need is the business community to behave responsibly, the government to regulate responsibly, and the politicians owned by Wall Street and K-street to get out of the way of government investment in technology, infrastructure, health, and education.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 1:01 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 3:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 4:43 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 5:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    False dichotomy. I'm referring to the guaranteed minimum income which can include minimum wages and welfare. And you brought up "an idea tha that could be supported by both left and right." I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 5:27 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    False dichotomy. I'm referring to the guaranteed minimum income which can include minimum wages and welfare. And you brought up "an idea tha that could be supported by both left and right." I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so.



    Not false at all. There are many on the right who agree with the idea - after all, it was Milton Friedman who supported the idea of negative income tax. Again I ask you how many Democrats would get rid of the other support including minimum wage and welfare in exchange for something like the minimum income?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 5:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    False dichotomy. I'm referring to the guaranteed minimum income which can include minimum wages and welfare. And you brought up "an idea tha that could be supported by both left and right." I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so.



    Not false at all. There are many on the right who agree with the idea - after all, it was Milton Friedman who supported the idea of negative income tax. Again I ask you how many Democrats would get rid of the other support including minimum wage and welfare in exchange for something like the minimum income?


    Again, false dichotomy. Why do you have to get one or the other? You're referring to the basic income...I'm referring to guaranteed minimum income. Different ideas.

    And, that is why I said, a Republican who is in office today, not Milton Friedman.icon_lol.gif

    And here Bruce Bartlett explaining why it's the EITC that is responsible for the 47% number. I thought you liked the EITC?
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 5:54 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    False dichotomy. I'm referring to the guaranteed minimum income which can include minimum wages and welfare. And you brought up "an idea tha that could be supported by both left and right." I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so.



    Not false at all. There are many on the right who agree with the idea - after all, it was Milton Friedman who supported the idea of negative income tax. Again I ask you how many Democrats would get rid of the other support including minimum wage and welfare in exchange for something like the minimum income?


    Again, false dichotomy. Why do you have to get one or the other? You're referring to the basic income...I'm referring to guaranteed minimum income. Different ideas.

    And, that is why I said, a Republican who is in office today, not Milton Friedman.icon_lol.gif

    And here Bruce Bartlett explaining why it's the EITC that is responsible for the 47% number. I thought you liked the EITC?
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/


    Again it's not a false dichotomy. If you think that you can have minimum income AND a minimum wage, you really don't understand the idea - which is why I have asked you what Democrat would support both. You asked "I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so." There are many on the right who support the idea including Greg Mankiw.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 5:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    False dichotomy. I'm referring to the guaranteed minimum income which can include minimum wages and welfare. And you brought up "an idea tha that could be supported by both left and right." I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so.



    Not false at all. There are many on the right who agree with the idea - after all, it was Milton Friedman who supported the idea of negative income tax. Again I ask you how many Democrats would get rid of the other support including minimum wage and welfare in exchange for something like the minimum income?


    Again, false dichotomy. Why do you have to get one or the other? You're referring to the basic income...I'm referring to guaranteed minimum income. Different ideas.

    And, that is why I said, a Republican who is in office today, not Milton Friedman.icon_lol.gif

    And here Bruce Bartlett explaining why it's the EITC that is responsible for the 47% number. I thought you liked the EITC?
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/


    Again it's not a false dichotomy. If you think that you can have minimum income AND a minimum wage, you really don't understand the idea - which is why I have asked you what Democrat would support both. You asked "I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so." There are many on the right who support the idea including Greg Mankiw.


    Look up "guaranteed minimum income" on Wikipedia. You're referring to basic income.

    And, again, a bona fide, in office, not voted out, Republican public servant, s'il vous plait.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 6:02 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidShow me a Republican in office today that is for a minimum income. Remember who invented the 47% argument and is sticking with it. icon_lol.gif


    You can both believe in the 47% argument - and believe that there's a better alternative to create incentives for people who want to be more productive in society. This is one of those alternatives.


    Again, I would love to hear the name of an actively legislating Republican that supports a minimum income today...when the majority of them today want to cut back the EITC.

    And you never looked up who doesn't pay fed income taxes.icon_sad.gif


    I must have missed the part where the idea that Republicans or Democrats must support or deride it in order for it to be a good or bad idea. I'm curious how many Democrats you are able to name who are for the idea if it also comes with the abolition of minimum wage and much of welfare? Or didn't you think there were trade offs?

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    False dichotomy. I'm referring to the guaranteed minimum income which can include minimum wages and welfare. And you brought up "an idea tha that could be supported by both left and right." I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so.



    Not false at all. There are many on the right who agree with the idea - after all, it was Milton Friedman who supported the idea of negative income tax. Again I ask you how many Democrats would get rid of the other support including minimum wage and welfare in exchange for something like the minimum income?


    Again, false dichotomy. Why do you have to get one or the other? You're referring to the basic income...I'm referring to guaranteed minimum income. Different ideas.

    And, that is why I said, a Republican who is in office today, not Milton Friedman.icon_lol.gif

    And here Bruce Bartlett explaining why it's the EITC that is responsible for the 47% number. I thought you liked the EITC?
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/


    Again it's not a false dichotomy. If you think that you can have minimum income AND a minimum wage, you really don't understand the idea - which is why I have asked you what Democrat would support both. You asked "I'm asking you to show me a current member of the right that does so." There are many on the right who support the idea including Greg Mankiw.


    Look up "guaranteed minimum income" on Wikipedia. You're referring to basic income.

    And, again, a bona fide, in office, not voted out, Republican public servant, s'il vous plait.


    Did you miss the entire point of the article? Oh, oops why yes you did. So again, please give me a Democrat in office who is in support of trading this off with minimum wage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 6:07 PM GMT
    We had this discussion already in another thread...his point regarding the minimum wage has not been shown in real life. So, again, false dichotomy, raised by op and you.

    So, show me your Republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 6:12 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidWe had this discussion already in another thread...his point regarding the minimum wage has not been shown in real life. So, again, false dichotomy, raised by op and you.

    So, show me your Republican.


    Again did you read the article or the point of it? I suppose I should have asked if you understood it. His point was more than about how the minimum wage - but the rationale for it in terms of "Social obligations should be socially financed". And we did have a discussion in another thread about the failure of minimum wage as a policy - which has been shown to affect unemployment in real life. His point was that minimum income was a better policy than minimum wage and that the former should replace the latter.

    So, show me your Democrat that would agree with this. QED. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Also you have not bothered to respond further to the other questions about the 47% you referenced:

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 6:40 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidWe had this discussion already in another thread...his point regarding the minimum wage has not been shown in real life. So, again, false dichotomy, raised by op and you.

    So, show me your Republican.


    Again did you read the article or the point of it? I suppose I should have asked if you understood it. His point was more than about how the minimum wage - but the rationale for it in terms of "Social obligations should be socially financed". And we did have a discussion in another thread about the failure of minimum wage as a policy - which has been shown to affect unemployment in real life. His point was that minimum income was a better policy than minimum wage and that the former should replace the latter.

    So, show me your Democrat that would agree with this. QED. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Also you have not bothered to respond further to the other questions about the 47% you referenced:

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    No, my recollection of the minimum wage argument is that majority of studies do not show major changes on unemployment.
    And your point and his point on replacement is a forced nonissue. Are you saying a basic income will solve all social obligations? E.g. a senior citizen can live without Medicare if he or she has a basic income?

    And I did respond to the 47% issue...unless you get rid of the EITC, force students and seniors to pay federal income tax, you'll never get rid if the 47% number. Progressivity in the federal tax system and regressivity of the state and local taxes both exist. Payroll taxes are taxes. Not everybody is entitled to the benefits...e.g. If you have not worked a prerequisite amount of time, you can't get Medicare or ss benefits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 6:52 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidWe had this discussion already in another thread...his point regarding the minimum wage has not been shown in real life. So, again, false dichotomy, raised by op and you.

    So, show me your Republican.


    Again did you read the article or the point of it? I suppose I should have asked if you understood it. His point was more than about how the minimum wage - but the rationale for it in terms of "Social obligations should be socially financed". And we did have a discussion in another thread about the failure of minimum wage as a policy - which has been shown to affect unemployment in real life. His point was that minimum income was a better policy than minimum wage and that the former should replace the latter.

    So, show me your Democrat that would agree with this. QED. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Also you have not bothered to respond further to the other questions about the 47% you referenced:

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    No, my recollection of the minimum wage argument is that majority of studies do not show major changes on unemployment.
    And your point and his point on replacement is a forced nonissue. Are you saying a basic income will solve all social obligations? E.g. a senior citizen can live without Medicare if he or she has a basic income?

    And I did respond to the 47% issue...unless you get rid of the EITC, force students and seniors to pay federal income tax, you'll never get rid if the 47% number. Progressivity in the federal tax system and regressivity of the state and local taxes both exist. Payroll taxes are taxes. Not everybody is entitled to the benefits...e.g. If you have not worked a prerequisite amount of time, you can't get Medicare or ss benefits.


    OK so the it is both the right and prerogative when it comes to payroll taxes then how government uses the funds? It can cut or change benefits as they see fit?

    And no, my point on replacement while it is a forced replacement is hardly a non issue particularly if you understand his argument. I am saying a basic income will solve most of those social obligations because it provides a safety net that other regulations now try to work to build. So yes, this should replace rather than augment. Healthcare is a different issue - but also another set of entitlements that need to be solved given how inefficiently it is spent in the US.

    As for the minimum wage, most studies show that at least there is a minor decrease in employment when minimum wage rises but that context also matters. ie it depends on where market wages are. In an earlier thread you acknowledged you are against increasing payroll taxes in a soft economy because it kills jobs - so why would you be for increasing minimum wage that effectively becomes a tax for smaller businesses in this economy? What is unemployment for youth these days? What is it for Europe if you happen to know? How do their minimum wages compare?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 8:42 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidWe had this discussion already in another thread...his point regarding the minimum wage has not been shown in real life. So, again, false dichotomy, raised by op and you.

    So, show me your Republican.


    Again did you read the article or the point of it? I suppose I should have asked if you understood it. His point was more than about how the minimum wage - but the rationale for it in terms of "Social obligations should be socially financed". And we did have a discussion in another thread about the failure of minimum wage as a policy - which has been shown to affect unemployment in real life. His point was that minimum income was a better policy than minimum wage and that the former should replace the latter.

    So, show me your Democrat that would agree with this. QED. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Also you have not bothered to respond further to the other questions about the 47% you referenced:

    Irrespective of who does or does not pay income taxes, are you making the claim that it is healthy for your republic to have such a substantial minority not contribute to the federal government? Especially when such a substantial minority - and possibly soon to be majority gets more from the state than it contributes?

    I also like the charts that claim that because many more pay payroll taxes this 47% idea is wrong. What are payroll taxes? Liberals like yourself have argued that they are insurance schemes that the government administers and aren't really taxes (and as a result any payouts from them, recipients are "entitled" to). So which is it? You can't claim both.


    No, my recollection of the minimum wage argument is that majority of studies do not show major changes on unemployment.
    And your point and his point on replacement is a forced nonissue. Are you saying a basic income will solve all social obligations? E.g. a senior citizen can live without Medicare if he or she has a basic income?

    And I did respond to the 47% issue...unless you get rid of the EITC, force students and seniors to pay federal income tax, you'll never get rid if the 47% number. Progressivity in the federal tax system and regressivity of the state and local taxes both exist. Payroll taxes are taxes. Not everybody is entitled to the benefits...e.g. If you have not worked a prerequisite amount of time, you can't get Medicare or ss benefits.


    OK so the it is both the right and prerogative when it comes to payroll taxes then how government uses the funds? It can cut or change benefits as they see fit?

    And no, my point on replacement while it is a forced replacement is hardly a non issue particularly if you understand his argument. I am saying a basic income will solve most of those social obligations because it provides a safety net that other regulations now try to work to build. So yes, this should replace rather than augment. Healthcare is a different issue - but also another set of entitlements that need to be solved given how inefficiently it is spent in the US.

    As for the minimum wage, most studies show that at least there is a minor decrease in employment when minimum wage rises but that context also matters. ie it depends on where market wages are. In an earlier thread you acknowledged you are against increasing payroll taxes in a soft economy because it kills jobs - so why would you be for increasing minimum wage that effectively becomes a tax for smaller businesses in this economy? What is unemployment for youth these days? What is it for Europe if you happen to know? How do their minimum wages compare?


    Certainly the government can change benefits as they see fit, based on tax revenue and outlays. Witness what's happening in congress.

    I understand his argument but it is a forced issue. If healthcare is so different as a social obligation, what about other myriad social obligations? Why subsume everything under one thing? You can have a minimum wage, retirement benefits, healthcare coverage and other different components which supplements a basic income.

    Last paragraph--too many distracting questions. What is a tax for smaller businesses (and larger businesses as well which use min wage workers) is money injected into the economy via those workers. Unemployment for youth today has increased as a trend due to more of them staying in school, besids the job market. European austerity has caused economic weakness and thus upwards of 25% in youth employment. Their minimum wages have not changed recently, and you can't point to one thing such as min wages as the cause of their economic weakness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 9:24 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidCertainly the government can change benefits as they see fit, based on tax revenue and outlays. Witness what's happening in congress.

    I understand his argument but it is a forced issue. If healthcare is so different as a social obligation, what about other myriad social obligations? Why subsume everything under one thing? You can have a minimum wage, retirement benefits, healthcare coverage and other different components which supplements a basic income.

    Last paragraph--too many distracting questions. What is a tax for smaller businesses (and larger businesses as well which use min wage workers) is money injected into the economy via those workers. Unemployment for youth today has increased as a trend due to more of them staying in school, besids the job market. European austerity has caused economic weakness and thus upwards of 25% in youth employment. Their minimum wages have not changed recently, and you can't point to one thing such as min wages as the cause of their economic weakness.


    Good - so this means you disagree with the position a number of liberals have taken then that they are entitled to the social security benefits that were promised to them when they joined the program?

    And while you may feel that it's a forced issue, it's not. The idea of minimum wage versus minimum income are two sides of the same coin once you understand the objective. You may want to read the article again. To do both is not only redundant but counterproductive. I am unsure you understand odd logic that you can be both against higher payroll taxes but you don't recognize minimum wage legislation as the same thing as a tax.

    The last paragraph is less "distracting" than inconvenient for your views. I'm curious why you think that Europe and to a lesser extent, Canada have had persistently higher levels of unemployment - and this isn't a recent thing (as quite recently the US unemployment rate has risen to match Canada's)? I'm not talking about the recent economic weakness which speaks more to the overspending and the hangover of spending money that they don't have, but rather over the past few decades. Do you believe that minimum wage and welfare play a role?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 9:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidCertainly the government can change benefits as they see fit, based on tax revenue and outlays. Witness what's happening in congress.

    I understand his argument but it is a forced issue. If healthcare is so different as a social obligation, what about other myriad social obligations? Why subsume everything under one thing? You can have a minimum wage, retirement benefits, healthcare coverage and other different components which supplements a basic income.

    Last paragraph--too many distracting questions. What is a tax for smaller businesses (and larger businesses as well which use min wage workers) is money injected into the economy via those workers. Unemployment for youth today has increased as a trend due to more of them staying in school, besids the job market. European austerity has caused economic weakness and thus upwards of 25% in youth employment. Their minimum wages have not changed recently, and you can't point to one thing such as min wages as the cause of their economic weakness.


    Good - so this means you disagree with the position a number of liberals have taken then that they are entitled to the social security benefits that were promised to them when they joined the program?

    And while you may feel that it's a forced issue, it's not. The idea of minimum wage versus minimum income are two sides of the same coin once you understand the objective. You may want to read the article again. To do both is not only redundant but counterproductive. I am unsure you understand odd logic that you can be both against higher payroll taxes but you don't recognize minimum wage legislation as the same thing as a tax.

    The last paragraph is less "distracting" than inconvenient for your views. I'm curious why you think that Europe and to a lesser extent, Canada have had persistently higher levels of unemployment - and this isn't a recent thing (as quite recently the US unemployment rate has risen to match Canada's)? I'm not talking about the recent economic weakness which speaks more to the overspending and the hangover of spending money that they don't have, but rather over the past few decades. Do you believe that minimum wage and welfare play a role?


    I agree that retirement needs change with time. Means testing should be increased. Right now, there's a good case for INcreasing ss benefits for lower income seniors, and overall contributions have got to increase whether that's a good idea or not, simply due to demographics.

    Examples of why I still think it's a forced issue and even an unfair issue. A worker gets disabled and becomes unable to work, or he becomes unemployed after having worked for a certain amount of time. Do you think it's fair for him to just get a basic income? Or should he not get disability income (which can be financed by a separate DI system) and/or unemployment benefits in addition? If he doesn't, where is the incentive for work?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 10:00 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI agree that retirement needs change with time. Means testing should be increased. Right now, there's a good case for INcreasing ss benefits for lower income seniors, and overall contributions have got to increase whether that's a good idea or not, simply due to demographics.

    Examples of why I still think it's a forced issue and even an unfair issue. A worker gets disabled and becomes unable to work, or he becomes unemployed after having worked for a certain amount of time. Do you think it's fair for him to just get a basic income? Or should he not get disability income (which can be financed by a separate DI system) and/or unemployment benefits in addition? If he doesn't, where is the incentive for work?


    It's sort of odd. My perception of your view is sort of needs based. The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that the US can't support the social security it's put out in the past. So to claim that there's a good case for increasing benefits for seniors is odd. How would you pay for this? Are you willing to pay considerably more taxes for a benefit you won't get back? If so, are you already doing so in contributing more than you need to to taxes this year?

    As for forced/unfair issue - again it's not. Again, it's the same coin - where I'd allow that there could be more than the guaranteed income but this isn't a "right" or a question of social justice/"fairness". There would also still be plenty of private programs for assistance as there are now - but what of the other side of the coin - that those who contribute more to society should get to keep more. Someone has to pay for these benefits as well. The idea is that this minimum income would not be enough for people to be comfortable but enough to subsist - I do allow though that for some on disability this may require a bit more. And that would be the incentive to work. And yes, it would be "fair" for them to just get the guaranteed minimum.

    You didn't however bother to consider the question of higher unemployments in Europe - why do you suppose that has been such a persistent issue relative to the US? Do you believe that minimum wage and welfare play a role?