So, this is how a Milennial sees a solution to the "Living Wage" issue....

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Which proves nothing except that 'luxury' items cost more here... Which kind of makes sense really, since low income earners have more to spend than low income earners in the states.

Wrong. Almost ALL items cost more there, otherwise Australia would not be the 5th most expensive place to live.

At the end of the day who's better off? The person earning $15US an hour in Australia with no entitlments, or the person earning $7.25US an hour in America with no entitlements... game, set, match... as far as I'm concerned, since I already know the answer.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The person that is better off is the one who has more discretionary income in a country with a lower cost of living which the data clearly shows is the United States and not Australia. Your money goes further here requiring a lower overall salary to meet your needs or purchase additional goods and/or services.

You can try and dispute this all you want but the facts have been linked and are glaringly apparent for those that wish to review them without bias.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

I fail to see your point.
Is it that "everyone has a price"?
Is it that "women are whores?"

It really isn't that coherent.

Strictly speaking, something like this will eventually need to happen if the current course of society isn't averted, it's just a question of "when". What happens when there's only one job for every ten people, because all the rest have been replaced by machinery?
Someone's worth shouldn't be measured by their job.

I'm to take it that you'd be okay with a hike in taxes to pay for all the "basic living" checks.

Say the tax rate has to be 80% to pay for it.

You'd be okay with 80% tax rate for the entitlement checks, but you think 100% tax rate is silly?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The biggest issues with Australia as far as I'm concerned are our terrible internet, our crazy rent/house prices, and our relatively weak dollar compared to the USD. Food's never seemed that expensive to me. Two people can easily live off $80 a week. Can they live off $56 a week in America? Genuine question, I don't know.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What? No, I think "basic living" checks is an unfortunate result of a society failing to become Utopian, and being stuck with barely functioning Capitalism. As things stand, however, that is where we all end up. Either that, or see billions of people living in poverty, working slave-wages and barely subsisting on government assistance. A basic living check is, at least, somewhat more dignified.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Grocery prices are on par based on the first source that I linked.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, I've worked for $600US a week (before tax) in Australia plenty of times and have felt very comfortable... Go find me someone in the US that works 40 hours a week for $290US (before tax), who feels there comfortable and I'll concede defeat.

But we both know you can't find anyone that will claim that... right?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can't seem to find it, so I'll assume it was adjusted for the dollar strength differences? That is, something costing $1 in Australia would cost $0.70 in America.

Hmm, for our minimum wage to be equitable, the cost of living in the US must be half that of ours. Even less than that if you account for currency values.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

What? No, I think "basic living" checks is an unfortunate result of a society failing to become Utopian, and being stuck with barely functioning Capitalism. As things stand, however, that is where we all end up. Either that, or see billions of people living in poverty, working slave-wages and barely subsisting on government assistance. A basic living check is, at least, somewhat more dignified.

What is the highest tax percentage you'd be willing to inflict on a society to insure that everyone got their entitlement checks?

a reply to: DBCowboy

It depends on the society. 1900's era America, for instance, such a thing is unnecessary. In 2015's America, it is still unnecessary, but fast becoming a solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I think a step-laddered tax percentage, with

0-50K @ 30%
50K-125K @ 50%
125K-250K @ 65%
250K+ @ 90%

But these are pointless numbers pulled from thin hair. I'd actually have to research things thoroughly to truly say what I think would be acceptable.

Really, though? "Entitlement" check? Taxes that are "inflicted" on society? The only taxes that are "inflicted" are those used to bail out large corporations and banks, those wasted on military and war, and those used to give massive oil companies subsidiaries. Try to not wear your bias on your sleeve, please. It's distracting.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

It depends on the society. 1900's era America, for instance, such a thing is unnecessary. In 2015's America, it is still unnecessary, but fast becoming a solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I think a step-laddered tax percentage, with

0-50K @ 30%
50K-125K @ 50%
125K-250K @ 65%
250K+ @ 90%

But these are pointless numbers pulled from thin hair. I'd actually have to research things thoroughly to truly say what I think would be acceptable.

Really, though? "Entitlement" check? Taxes that are "inflicted" on society? The only taxes that are "inflicted" are those used to bail out large corporations and banks, those wasted on military and war, and those used to give massive oil companies subsidiaries. Try to not wear your bias on your sleeve, please. It's distracting.

So you don't want the government to take away ALL money earned by people, you just want to take enough so that people who don't work get to live the same as those who DO work.

90% for people making over 250K?

Why not 95%?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Like I said, Walmart is a terrible example because they are a terrible company.

I agree and said as much, but once again with all that they still only make 5 billion in profit, and I would bet it all roles into the 500 billion gross to get that 5 billion profit.

So are you saying they do not want to pay more, but they easily could. They could easily make their workers happier but they are so evil they will not do it even when they can... As I said if they could they would rather dump it into profit, and so they can not do it.

Walmart did a study to see what it would take to maintain current profit projections and pay all employees a minimum of $12 an hour.

It would cost each customer $0.87 per visit.

Not at all as outrageous as you want to pretend.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

think a step-laddered tax percentage, with

0-50K @ 30%
50K-125K @ 50%
125K-250K @ 65%
250K+ @ 90%

Ignoring that using that logic and those numbers the 250K would actually bring home less money then the 50K worker.

What will likely happen, the 250K getting taxed 90% will leave overnight to another country so the 125k-250K will become the new targeted 90%


0-50K @ 50%
50K-125K @ 65%
125K-250K @ 90%

then

0-50K @ 65%
50K-125K @ 90%

then
0-50K @ 100%


Why not make it fair and tax everyone the same?

0-50K @ 10%
50K-125K @ 10%
125K-250K @ 10%
250K+ @ 10%

a reply to: DBCowboy

Those who "DO" work would actually be making significantly more. The tax rate isn't 90% from 0+, it's only 30% for the first 50K. However, I wrote that up assuming the people who worked would still be receiving the "basic living" check.

Why not 95%, indeed? Why not 100? Why do I not just destroy the planet?
Because I decided on 90%. It was a number mostly chosen because it was closest to what existed in the FDR era, but in all truth I don't really care. It could be 95%, it could be 85%,

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: dawnstar

Don't waste your time debating with them.

69% of the economy is service sector.

Simple facts people simple facts.

Amazing how that gets ignored nonstop isnt it?

But according to them, everyone can live the high life if they want to and work hard.....

All the while ignoring the facts, like the fact most jobs available dont pay enough for people to even live on.

a reply to: interupt42

I think you fatally misunderstand the way a step-laddered system like the one I am speaking of actually works.

The first 50K is taxed at 30%, so they make 35K.
Then the next 75K is taxed at 50%, so that's an additional 32.5K, ON TOP of the 35K
Then the next 125K is taxed at 65%, so that's an additional 43.75K, ON TOP of the 67.5K
Then everything after 250K is taxed at 90%, so that's an additional 1K for every 10K ON TOP of the previous amount.

The values themselves may need adjustment, of course. They are for the most part random numbers pulled from the ether.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

Those who "DO" work would actually be making significantly more. The tax rate isn't 90% from 0+, it's only 30% for the first 50K. However, I wrote that up assuming the people who worked would still be receiving the "basic living" check.

Why not 95%, indeed? Why not 100? Why do I not just destroy the planet?
Because I decided on 90%. It was a number mostly chosen because it was closest to what existed in the FDR era, but in all truth I don't really care. It could be 95%, it could be 85%,

Like the above poster said, make it 10% for everyone.

It's a necessary evil, taxes are a burden. Not a benevolent gift.

I'm tired of people expecting an entitlement check.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

WHY should the government determine what a person should make???

a reply to: DBCowboy

No, I don't think I will.

Taxes aren't really a burden compared to their alternative. The real issue is their mismanagement, not their existence.

I'm tired of people thinking an "entitlement" check isn't a reality we're going to have to face if things keep progressing along the same course. I do not want an "entitlement" check to exist, but I think it is going to be inevitable, as American society seems quite dead-set on avoiding becoming Utopian.

a reply to: DBCowboy

WHY should I not just kill everyone I walk past?
WHY should the earth not randomly explode?

They are not determining what a person "should" make, they are determining what a person "does, at minimum, make."

I take it you support unions then?
At least, I certainly hope you do.