It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DeadFoot
It really doesn't matter if you think demand has a heavier weight on the supply/demand price model, if you give everyone 25k a year then the supply of money goes up an the demand for money goes down, devaluing the dollar.
Also, your idea that giving corporate more money guarantees new jobs has been proven fallible many times. If a company gets more money on their net and now they can afford some sort of machinery that replaces a staffed position, then they will absolutely do it, which would eliminate jobs, and it happens all the time.
originally posted by: Discotech
Just a question to all those in favour of not giving welfare to the poor
How do you all feel about the crooks and frauds who destroyed the economy in 2008 and got bailed out by your own tax money ?
I guess welfare is only okay when it's going to those already rich right ?
Millennials came of age during a tough economic time: Student debt has reached an all-time high, and the job market is more competitive than ever. As a result, young people today aren't earning as much money as their parents did when they were young. So how much are they making?
Using data from the Minnesota Population Center's 2014 "American Community Survey" in the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, we found the median annual total personal income for employed millennials. We used the Pew Research Center's definition of millennials: Americans born between 1981 and 1997.
The medians ranged between a low of $18,000 per year in Montana and a high of $43,000 in the District of Columbia. How do you stack up?
In 2014-2015, the school year just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $18,943. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,730. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $13,313.
A student would now have to work 35 hours a week, every week of the year, to get by. To cover today's costs with a low-skilled, minimum wage summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 20.24 hours a day.
The share of total U.S. income earned by the top 1 percent increased from 20.1 percent in 2013 to 21.2 percent in 2014, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez reported Monday.
The top 10 percent share also rose, from 48.9 percent of all income in 2013 to 49.9 percent in 2014.
Those were the highest shares claimed by the top 10 percent since 1917, setting aside the year 2012, when earners shifted significant amounts of income from the future to the present in order to avoid new taxes on high incomes resulting from the expiration of some Bush-era tax cuts.
originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Your whole talk about people not deserving a 'living wage' is rather disturbing.
Can you work 20 hours a day?
originally posted by: Aazadan
The money comes from taxes, it's not printed from nothing. Therefore the supply doesn't change.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But the amount of tax dollars coming in to IRS would decrease because, if the government were being fair about it (and they wouldn't be), that $25k would not get taxed. That's a substantial decrease in revenue--but if they didn't tax it, they would have to supplement it by either raising taxes on income from individuals' jobs, or increase it on businesses' wages. Either way, it takes the same amount of money away from the producers while providing for the lethargic, apathetic Americans who would do little or nothing to supplement that free allowance from the gov't.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Aazadan
Hold on--what jobs would "free" money create?
And do you think that all of this re-taxing and re-taxing and re-taxing is a good thing? (plus, sales tax doesn't go to the federal coffers, it goes to state and local)
You're pointing out a major problem that already exists--our income is taxed and taxed and taxed and taxed to a point where it's either laughable or infuriating (I cycle between the two, but stay mostly on the infuriated side). What makes you think that giving away billions of dollars isn't going to increase the taxes on actual income even more, and why do you not recognize that taxing income, then giving back that revenue as income, then taxing it, then giving it back, equates to nothing more than a federal pyramid scheme, even though it would get back much less than it gives, meaning that the remaining balance would fall on the backs of people who choose to actually make an income on top of the free money?
originally posted by: Aazadan
Who the tax money goes to is irrelevant. There are certain services that society needs/wants in order to function and those services are going to be provided by government or by someone else, we won't simply go without. A state vs federal sales tax is nothing more than an accounting measure to determine who gets that money, it will still be spent on those services. This is equally true if we have no tax for that service as the money instead goes to a company to provide it rather than to the government. All of it is literally exactly the same in this regard, the only difference is that a private company has to make a profit and is thus superior for services that are wants where utmost efficiency is important while a government is funded through taxes and is therefore superior for services that we instead want to give to everyone rather than most, at the cost of some efficiency.
... As a persons income level rises however the percentage of their income that they're spending on day to day needs declines, this is the same logic as why we have progressive tax rates.
$25,000 to everyone results in those at lower income levels directly spending an additional $25,000 per year which inevitably filters back to the government through taxes (how many times that money has to be spent and respent in order to be collected is a function of the tax rate, 1/tax % to be specific).
However, $25,000 to people making $100,000/year already doesn't result in another $25,000 entering the economy. Instead it results in $25,000 sitting in the banks and being used to make more money.
For the record I was initially using 15k and not 25k as that's roughly equal to Norways basic income, I only bring that up now because it's relevant to my above point. $15,000 is distributed and respent more efficiently than $25,000 is because at $25,000 it stands to reason that a larger percentage of it will be saved and kept out of the economy. Ultimately, the numbers you choose matter very little which is why I didn't mention it before but this seemed to be a good time to bring up that clarification.