$15/hour min. wage?

[nobeatenpath]

Canada's petrol price per litre was so high when we pumped gas in October in Ontario. Your sales tax is high too. It made us thankful for the relatively low gasoline price per gallon and also the lower sales tax. I'm sorry your pump price would cost more. Once outside downtown Toronto, we had to drive long distance to Waterloo and Niagara Falls as public transport wasn't easy.

 

 

The US has low petrol prices compared to much of the world. Part of the impact of this is that unlike many other countries fuel taxes do not cover driving associated infrastructure costs or other externalities which then have to be found in other parts of the budget (or not covered at all). This is part of a bigger problem with people not wanting to pay the 'true cost' of things - if you don't pay for it at the point of sale you either have to pay in higher taxes (which people in most countries don't want to do) or somewhere in the production and distribution chain, which often ends up meaning not paying workers very highly to producing goods and providing services.

[Murphy101]

The other day, I noticed that McDonald's had an automatic coffee filler. You enter what the person wants, the machine selects a cup, puts it under the correct nozzle, fills it, and sends it down the line. (I don't recall if the machine put the lid on or not.)

Those machines have been around for decades in vending machines. I remember getting hot coffee from them as a kid for the adults visiting the hospitals or hotels where they were so common.

 

Gas stations have auto coffee machines where you select what you want, but you have to place the cup for it.

 

Just saying, much of this has nothing to do with wages or even new tech.

[SKL]

Those machines have been around for decades in vending machines. I remember getting hot coffee from them as a kid for the adults visiting the hospitals or hotels where they were so common.

 

Gas stations have auto coffee machines where you select what you want, but you have to place the cup for it.

 

Just saying, much of this has nothing to do with wages or even new tech.

 

Yes, even my old self got them from vending machines as a kid, but this was the first time I saw it at McD's (or other restaurant) coming directly from the order input computer.

[historically accurate]

The other day, I noticed that McDonald's had an automatic coffee filler.  You enter what the person wants, the machine selects a cup, puts it under the correct nozzle, fills it, and sends it down the line.  (I don't recall if the machine put the lid on or not.)

 

 

The soda machines in the drive thru windows have been like this for years around here. They're like a little assembly line - it stops the cup under the right nozzle, fills to a preset amount, and then slides it off the end.  I don't know if the coffee machines are like that - they are farther from the window, so I can't see them. The attendant does need to put on the lid before handing it out the window. 

[SKL]

Hmm, I guess things catch on more slowly where I live.  :P

[shawthorne44]

It would make more sense to reduce property taxes. That would lower rent to affordable.

I would also like to see boarding houses legally return. That would lower the amount needing services, which would lower taxes.

 

There have been times in my life when I would have loved loved loved to live in a boarding house.  

[fairfarmhand]

 

The only thing I can see minimum wage doing is raising the costs of EVERYTHING.  Do I want to pay $5 for a gallon of milk and $5 for a loaf of bread?  I think raising the minimum wage that high will absolutely salughter the middle class because we aren't eligible for any of the help the poor are and yet we will have to absorb the additional raises in prices on every solitary thing.

 

See, one thing that has costs skewed is government subsidies on food products.

 

But that's probably a whole 'nother thread. Because our food dollars don't really always reflect the value of that product.

[fairfarmhand]

There have been times in my life when I would have loved loved loved to live in a boarding house.  

 

In the college town near where I live, there are these gorgeous, huge old Victorian homes. I've had crazy fantasies of buying one when I'm old and widowed and opening a girls' boarding house for carefully screened young college students.

 

That sounds like it could be a terrible nightmare or SO much fun! And it would be nicer than dorms but less expensive than an apartment.

[Bluegoat]

See, one thing that has costs skewed is government subsidies on food products.

 

But that's probably a whole 'nother thread. Because our food dollars don't really always reflect the value of that product.

 

It comes into it though.  One way or another, it doesn't seem like it will be possible to keep the same level of consumer spending.  And I think that's probably a good thing, except it will cause a lot of trouble in the interim.

[Bluegoat]

:grouphug: I know many dual income families paying under the table for nannies because childcare cost more. For example a nanny gets $1500 for taking care of a toddler and she helps cook dinner when the toddler naps. Childcare center was charging $1900 or more at that time for the under 3s with a ratio of 1 to 2,3 or 4.

 

Canada's petrol price per litre was so high when we pumped gas in October in Ontario. Your sales tax is high too. It made us thankful for the relatively low gasoline price per gallon and also the lower sales tax. I'm sorry your pump price would cost more. Once outside downtown Toronto, we had to drive long distance to Waterloo and Niagara Falls as public transport wasn't easy. :grouphug:

 

Cheapp gas leads to really bad city building, though, and goods and food being produced far away instead of where they will employ people who will use them. 

 

People living in North AMerica are always complaining about how their communities require so much driving - higher gas prices are one reason it often isn't quite as bad in other places.

[shawthorne44]

In the college town near where I live, there are these gorgeous, huge old Victorian homes. I've had crazy fantasies of buying one when I'm old and widowed and opening a girls' boarding house for carefully screened young college students.

 

That sounds like it could be a terrible nightmare or SO much fun! And it would be nicer than dorms but less expensive than an apartment.

 

I knew someone who lived in something like that.   It was dirt cheap, four girls to a bedroom.  Mostly girls who were living with their boyfriends and needed to pretend otherwise to their parents.  So, she left some of her stuff there, and when her parents visited they visited her there.  Also, it gave the girls an automatic place to stay if boyfriend problems.  I think you had to be referred be a tenant.   

[mommytobees]

Just addressing this:

 

I feel jelous sometimes looking at, say, Swedish pre-schools - but OTOH I know that in Sweden there is no way I could stay home with my four kids and make a little money by taking care of my friend's kids as well.  Being a homemaker wouldn't be an option.

 

My cousin (our great-grandfathers were brothers) lives in Sweden and reduced her working hours to nothing to stay home her 2 1/2 (the 1/2 is a step-daughter) children until the youngest was 7 and then worked 20 hours a week until the youngest was 10. She could have stayed home longer, but wanted to return to her career....which was undamaged by their decision for her to stay home. Plus, she was given 80% of her pay for over a year for each of her two children and her husband was given 80% of his pay for 2 months to stay home with each child. Not only that... when her mother was dx'ed with terminal cancer less than a year after she returned to work, she and her 3 siblings took turns taking time off work to care for her. They each received 80% of their pay. This kept mom out of hospice until the very end, less than a week, and allowed the family to tend her needs. 

 

I know many people think they couldn't do there what is done here....and I disagree. I wish I had moved there when I had the chance at 22.

 

Kris

[Guest]

See, one thing that has costs skewed is government subsidies on food products.

 

But that's probably a whole 'nother thread. Because our food dollars don't really always reflect the value of that product.

 

its also that people want to maximize profits. Around here, rural, the farmers market is for the crowd that hires au pairs. Everyone else has their own garden, as prices are now around a dollar an item, or they shop the market in the nearest big city on their way home from work, which has lower prices and much better quality, or they do without. Everything out here is marketed towards the commuter with Manhattan wages, or double income professionals. The people that live and work in the area share their excess at work or church or family or give to the soup kitchen.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Heigh Ho

[fairfarmhand]

Here's a bit of pie in the sky wishfulness..

 

That stay at home parents would get some sort of tax credit or something because they're providing childcare. Not because I personalyl would want it. We financially can afford that. But lower middle and poorer class children would benefit from a parent staying home with them. This would translate (hopefully) into kids entering preschool and kindergarten with better skills. Because sometimes, paying your auunt under the table to keep 6-8 toddlers is just not the best situation.

 

Perhaps I'm too idealistic. Many would believe that the at home parent would waste their time watching oprah...

[Bluegoat]

Just addressing this:

 

 

My cousin (our great-grandfathers were brothers) lives in Sweden and reduced her working hours to nothing to stay home her 2 1/2 (the 1/2 is a step-daughter) children until the youngest was 7 and then worked 20 hours a week until the youngest was 10. She could have stayed home longer, but wanted to return to her career....which was undamaged by their decision for her to stay home. Plus, she was given 80% of her pay for over a year for each of her two children and her husband was given 80% of his pay for 2 months to stay home with each child. Not only that... when her mother was dx'ed with terminal cancer less than a year after she returned to work, she and her 3 siblings took turns taking time off work to care for her. They each received 80% of their pay. This kept mom out of hospice until the very end, less than a week, and allowed the family to tend her needs. 

 

I know many people think they couldn't do there what is done here....and I disagree. I wish I had moved there when I had the chance at 22.

 

Kris

 

I'm not sure how helpful anecdotal instances are, though.  We have public funded childcare here in Quebec, and it really does change the situation when it comes to making a decision to stay home or not. 

 

The ability to have a reasonable parental leave with pay is a great thing.  The US is way behind on that.

[Bluegoat]

Here's a bit of pie in the sky wishfulness..

 

That stay at home parents would get some sort of tax credit or something because they're providing childcare. Not because I personalyl would want it. We financially can afford that. But lower middle and poorer class children would benefit from a parent staying home with them. This would translate (hopefully) into kids entering preschool and kindergarten with better skills. Because sometimes, paying your auunt under the table to keep 6-8 toddlers is just not the best situation.

 

Perhaps I'm too idealistic. Many would believe that the at home parent would waste their time watching oprah...

 

This is one thing a basic income approach could help with - and with care for others as well, the disabled or elderly.

 

One of the tings that I like about it is that it aknowledges that people doing these things, or doing work at kids schools or really anything like that, are in fact contributing to the well-being of society.  Right now making a decision to do that sort of thing means really looking like a blak hole in terms of productivity.

[happi duck]

I wish that salaries within a business were connected. So the person on the top could only earn a certain percentage over the lowest salary in the company.

 

I can't stand that CEOs make way more than they need while people in their own company aren't able to make it.

 

I also wish we had basic income.

[mommytobees]

I'm not sure how helpful anecdotal instances are, though.  We have public funded childcare here in Quebec, and it really does change the situation when it comes to making a decision to stay home or not. 

 

The ability to have a reasonable parental leave with pay is a great thing.  The US is way behind on that.

 

Well, yes, if it is about money it does change the situation. As for anecdotal, I was answering a specific wishful line of note... I could back it with stats, but quite frankly, I don't care.

 

The whole point of this thread is that the US is way behind on a number of things.

 

Kris

[Guest]

Here's a bit of pie in the sky wishfulness..

 

That stay at home parents would get some sort of tax credit or something because they're providing childcare. Not because I personalyl would want it. We financially can afford that. But lower middle and poorer class children would benefit from a parent staying home with them. This would translate (hopefully) into kids entering preschool and kindergarten with better skills. Because sometimes, paying your auunt under the table to keep 6-8 toddlers is just not the best situation.

 

Perhaps I'm too idealistic. Many would believe that the at home parent would waste their time watching oprah...

This is where I want the spousal 401k limit increased. Rather than hire my neighbor to babysit my child at school, while those 'who really need help' receive instruction while half the class plays, I would rather let one spouse hire the other, allowing a higher 401k and the option to pay oop for SSDI, and SS. Sahp could then get cancer and have some disability to ease the suffering, rather than the indignity of a community fundraiser. Edited December 5, 2016 by Heigh Ho

[Ravin]

I'd be for a minimum income if that was it. Get rid of food stamps and other assistance programs and just have a minimum stipend.

 

If people want to pool together in multigeneration homes - fine. If they can save any of it - fine. If they want to buy steak or ramen - fine.

 

It'd save a bloody fortune in maintaining a ridiculous amount of subbeaucracies and lobby influence for things that don't benefit lower classes.

 

I actually agree with this, except that we ALSO need single payer health care. Proposals to introduce Universal Basic Income and in the process eliminating medicare/medicaid are a very bad idea. Because there is going to be a population of people who cannot work, who are disabled, or children, etc., with medical needs that UBI won't even touch as far as expense.

 

I do think that you could eliminate most housing subsidies and food stamps and the earned income tax credit with UBI in place.

 

Subsidies/tax breaks for building/renting/selling decent and affordable housing would still be needed, but on the individual user end cash in hand would be easier and more flexible than section 8 vouchers are in many places. 

[Ravin]

Minimum wage is the lowest amount an employer (with some exceptions) can pay.

 

Guaranteed minimum income can be structured a variety of ways but a common way to structure it is as a negative income tax that pays each eligible worker the difference between what they earn and what the minimum income level is.

 

Basic income can be structured a number of ways but I think guaranteed minimum income is more palatable.

 

I can see where minimum basic income would be more palatable. It also gives more incentive to employers to actually pay enough to make the effort worthwhile to workers. If you get $1000/month whether you work or not, and find a job, and the job only pays you $800/month, you are going to have to really want to do that job to make it worth showing up each day when you would get the same income whether you go or not. So there is incentive for employers to ensure they are paying employees at least a little above that minimum basic income whether they work 20 or 40 hours a week, so they have monetary incentive to show up.

 

OTOH, it would only be effective if employers (and not just individual workers who receive the payments) are seriously penalized for paying people under the table, including both individuals trying to skirt income reporting for GBI purposes, and undocumented workers.

[Ravin]

That isn't nearly as settled in economic research as you state. I know since the 90s (when I was doing research on the impact on minimum wage increases replicating some of the work of Card and Kreuger) that there have also been numerous studies showing that increasing the minimum wage has either no or a net positive impact on employment.

 

With that said, we have found that increasing the EITC more clearly has a positive impact on employment, so I could be convinced that raising the EITC, and paying for the increase via higher corporate taxes, is a viable alternative to raising the minimum wage.

 

The EITC does nothing to help people without minor children, though.

[DawnM]

Just addressing this:

 

 

My cousin (our great-grandfathers were brothers) lives in Sweden and reduced her working hours to nothing to stay home her 2 1/2 (the 1/2 is a step-daughter) children until the youngest was 7 and then worked 20 hours a week until the youngest was 10. She could have stayed home longer, but wanted to return to her career....which was undamaged by their decision for her to stay home. Plus, she was given 80% of her pay for over a year for each of her two children and her husband was given 80% of his pay for 2 months to stay home with each child. Not only that... when her mother was dx'ed with terminal cancer less than a year after she returned to work, she and her 3 siblings took turns taking time off work to care for her. They each received 80% of their pay. This kept mom out of hospice until the very end, less than a week, and allowed the family to tend her needs. 

 

I know many people think they couldn't do there what is done here....and I disagree. I wish I had moved there when I had the chance at 22.

 

Kris

 

 

Sweden also has a 56.4% income tax.  Ouch.

[Ravin]

The US has low petrol prices compared to much of the world. Part of the impact of this is that unlike many other countries fuel taxes do not cover driving associated infrastructure costs or other externalities which then have to be found in other parts of the budget (or not covered at all). This is part of a bigger problem with people not wanting to pay the 'true cost' of things - if you don't pay for it at the point of sale you either have to pay in higher taxes (which people in most countries don't want to do) or somewhere in the production and distribution chain, which often ends up meaning not paying workers very highly to producing goods and providing services.

 

A Value-added-tax on vehicles and goods shipped with them would make more sense than higher petrol taxes, with the increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles and move to non-petrol cars and trucks. Though higher gas taxes also have the advantage of incentivizing fuel efficiency and alternative fuel for consumers who can afford it.

[Ravin]

Here's a bit of pie in the sky wishfulness..

 

That stay at home parents would get some sort of tax credit or something because they're providing childcare. Not because I personalyl would want it. We financially can afford that. But lower middle and poorer class children would benefit from a parent staying home with them. This would translate (hopefully) into kids entering preschool and kindergarten with better skills. Because sometimes, paying your auunt under the table to keep 6-8 toddlers is just not the best situation.

 

Perhaps I'm too idealistic. Many would believe that the at home parent would waste their time watching oprah...

 

That used to be the main focus of welfare payments. The system was dismantled several decades ago in favor of "welfare to work."

[Guest]

A Value-added-tax on vehicles and goods shipped with them would make more sense than higher petrol taxes, with the increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles and move to non-petrol cars and trucks. Though higher gas taxes also have the advantage of incentivizing fuel efficiency and alternative fuel for consumers who can afford it.

Everyone needs skin in the transportation game as they all want emergency services and infrastructure. Dinging people who have no mass transport to subsidizes those who do, and have higher compensation, is very unpopular here.

[Ravin]

Sweden also has a 56.4% income tax.  Ouch.

 

Not when you are getting all the social services the government provides.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The EITC does nothing to help people without minor children, though.

 

It could be a starting point for a new tax incentive for low wage workers.

[Murphy101]

It could be a starting point for a new tax incentive for low wage workers.

Right. There's no reason is has to only be for people with children. (Also it is capped. So no, I am not making money sitting at home as a breeder. No one here said I am. But seriously this horse myth won't die no matter how much it's beaten.)

[bookbard]

That stay at home parents would get some sort of tax credit or something because they're providing childcare.

 

 

That happens here (in Australia). Parenting payment is for the SAH parent, whether single or partnered, if kids are under 6. You have to be pretty low income to get it though, under 40 grand. There's also another payment (family benefits), that is for up to 100 grand? or so. Oh, if you homeschool, you can stay on the parenting payment even if your kids are over 6. 

[Murphy101]

That used to be the main focus of welfare payments. The system was dismantled several decades ago in favor of "welfare to work."

My grump about welfare to work is it implies there's no value to stable family life, of which a SAHP can provide. And it ignores that in a cramped labor market like now, it could actually help employ more people if those who would rather stay home as care givers had the option. It wouldn't even require giving more money. They allot so much for daycare use. Use it to pay someone or use it to make staying home an itty bit easier.

 

Eta: I don't care if both parents work. So I don't want to argue the merits of either decision. 🙂

Edited December 5, 2016 by Murphy101

[fairfarmhand]

This is one thing a basic income approach could help with - and with care for others as well, the disabled or elderly.

 

One of the tings that I like about it is that it aknowledges that people doing these things, or doing work at kids schools or really anything like that, are in fact contributing to the well-being of society.  Right now making a decision to do that sort of thing means really looking like a blak hole in terms of productivity.

 

I hadn't thought of disabled or elderly...but yes!

 

My state has a elder/disabled care program where eligible recipients qualify for up to 10? (I think) hours of government funded help per week. I can't remember the pay scale...but I don't think it was awful.

The recipient can choose their own caregiver, even relatives can get this. This is a step in the right direction, and the point of the program is to help disabled stay in their own homes as long as possible. With so many families needing 2 incomes to make ends meet, the elderly can't stay home as long as they otherwise could, often shuttled off to nursing homes for safety reasons. Often, they've exhausted their own resources and are on state funding by that point anyway. It's cheaper for the state to pay a caregiver to keep them at home as long as possible, the elderly are happier, their families are happier. Win win all around.

[DawnM]

Not when you are getting all the social services the government provides.

 

There is a lot more to it than that.  Right now, the people trust their leaders.  I don't think we can say the same about our government.  Also, Sweden's economy and demographics are changing, it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in their future.  

[mommytobees]

Sweden also has a 56.4% income tax.  Ouch.

 

Americans see these numbers and do not understand what they mean. You look at the 50% of your income and see it going out the door, but do not see the stabilizing effect on your income.

 

Father's rights groups are out there throwing fits right and left because the Norwegian countries have little to no child support laws and "we should emulate" that. 

 

Reduced tax advocates yell and holler that the taxes are "too much".

 

But, first off, not everyone pays that much in taxes. Second off, you BENEFIT from paying taxes.

 

Today (5 Dec) USDollar to SEKrona the national tax cut off is about $45,000. If you make less than $45,000, you simply do not pay taxes. There are local taxes (similar to state and federal). Above $45,000 there are two levels of tax brackets. The average paid-out taxes is only 44%. 

 

You still get good healthcare.

You still get good education for your children.

You still get child subsidy payments (which are untaxed).

 

https://sweden.se/society/why-swedes-are-okay-with-paying-taxes/

https://sweden.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SI_pressrelease_tax_140507.pdf

 

Additionally, and I don't have time to go find it for you, but there are ways to reduce your tax-to-be-paid. A current initiate in Sweden is to reduce trash by encouraging people to fix household items rather than replace. They are currently at 1%. That makes the US an embarrassment.

 

Then you get into the medical reassurances that my cousin has that I do not have here in the US.

 

Add to that: while the overall COL is higher in Sweden, many of the individual costs are less. Rentals are on average 1/3 less (again, not looking this up right now---don't care), as are utilities, and overall grocery prices are less.

 

Living costs are less. You can live a basic life in Sweden for less than in the US. The luxuries are very expensive, but the basic costs are not. 

 

Norwegians get a lot for their taxes. Each country is a bit different, but they have assurances that we in the US do not have. I see the 28-60% tax rate as being an insurance policy. If you (the royal 'you') know you are healthy and your children are healthy and will never get sick, you have a good job that will never be lost, and you can afford your own and your children's educations.... then yes, living in the US is a much better deal.

 

I live in the real world where I have a 15yo and an 18yo children with MS.

Edited December 5, 2016 by mommytobees

[Julie Smith]

If you (the royal 'you') know you are healthy and your children are healthy and will never get sick, you have a good job that will never be lost, and you can afford your own and your children's educations.... then yes, living in the US is a much better deal.

 

 

I live in Canada, which in a several ways is somewhere between the US and Norway. 

 

I am healthy, my kids are healthy, My Dh has a good job and always has had it and will continue to have it. We afforded out own education, and will be able to afford out children's educations. Even considering that, I still consider living in Norway would be a better deal than the US since I would want to live with people who need not worry about the various things mentioned in your post. 

[Ausmumof3]

I wish that salaries within a business were connected. So the person on the top could only earn a certain percentage over the lowest salary in the company.

 

I can't stand that CEOs make way more than they need while people in their own company aren't able to make it.

 

I also wish we had basic income.

Yes. I could get behind that idea. Rather than a basic income an income share based on some kind of percentage system.

[Ausmumof3]

That happens here (in Australia). Parenting payment is for the SAH parent, whether single or partnered, if kids are under 6. You have to be pretty low income to get it though, under 40 grand. There's also another payment (family benefits), that is for up to 100 grand? or so. Oh, if you homeschool, you can stay on the parenting payment even if your kids are over 6.

It isn't equivalent to the child care benefit though which is available at higher rates and higher income. There has been a shift toward more for two income families and less for 1 parent at home families.

[DawnM]

Americans see these numbers and do not understand what they mean. You look at the 50% of your income and see it going out the door, but do not see the stabilizing effect on your income.

 

Father's rights groups are out there throwing fits right and left because the Norwegian countries have little to no child support laws and "we should emulate" that. 

 

Reduced tax advocates yell and holler that the taxes are "too much".

 

But, first off, not everyone pays that much in taxes. Second off, you BENEFIT from paying taxes.

 

Today (5 Dec) USDollar to SEKrona the national tax cut off is about $45,000. If you make less than $45,000, you simply do not pay taxes. There are local taxes (similar to state and federal). Above $45,000 there are two levels of tax brackets. The average paid-out taxes is only 44%. 

 

You still get good healthcare.

You still get good education for your children.

You still get child subsidy payments (which are untaxed).

 

https://sweden.se/society/why-swedes-are-okay-with-paying-taxes/

https://sweden.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SI_pressrelease_tax_140507.pdf

 

Additionally, and I don't have time to go find it for you, but there are ways to reduce your tax-to-be-paid. A current initiate in Sweden is to reduce trash by encouraging people to fix household items rather than replace. They are currently at 1%. That makes the US an embarrassment.

 

Then you get into the medical reassurances that my cousin has that I do not have here in the US.

 

Add to that: while the overall COL is higher in Sweden, many of the individual costs are less. Rentals are on average 1/3 less (again, not looking this up right now---don't care), as are utilities, and overall grocery prices are less.

 

Living costs are less. You can live a basic life in Sweden for less than in the US. The luxuries are very expensive, but the basic costs are not. 

 

Norwegians get a lot for their taxes. Each country is a bit different, but they have assurances that we in the US do not have. I see the 28-60% tax rate as being an insurance policy. If you (the royal 'you') know you are healthy and your children are healthy and will never get sick, you have a good job that will never be lost, and you can afford your own and your children's educations.... then yes, living in the US is a much better deal.

 

I live in the real world where I have a 15yo and an 18yo children with MS.

 

This has been discussed many times on this board.  The system is just not as workable in the US.  

 

In googling, there are articles upon articles of why it can't work in the US.

 

But I fear that we would just be spinning our wheels. I doubt we will agree. I am an educator, my father is in medicine. We do have some vested interest in researching.  We have also lived overseas, and have witnessed various forms of government first hand.  

 

And yes, I do understand the numbers.  I just don't want that kind of system or government intervention.

Edited December 6, 2016 by DawnM

[Murphy101]

I actually agree with this, except that we ALSO need single payer health care. Proposals to introduce Universal Basic Income and in the process eliminating medicare/medicaid are a very bad idea. Because there is going to be a population of people who cannot work, who are disabled, or children, etc., with medical needs that UBI won't even touch as far as expense.

 

I do think that you could eliminate most housing subsidies and food stamps and the earned income tax credit with UBI in place.

 

Subsidies/tax breaks for building/renting/selling decent and affordable housing would still be needed, but on the individual user end cash in hand would be easier and more flexible than section 8 vouchers are in many places.

? I never mentioned healthcare, much less doing away with anything.

 

I'm for universal healthcare, but not for Medicaid/care, which in my experience just combines the worst of beaucracy and insurance. Medicaid/Medicare are not free and they don't guarantee access to healthcare either. I've seen many people who can't afford care or get access to care in those programs.

 

But healthcare might have to be a separate thread and I'm talked out about it. My blood pressure is high enough these days.

[Tanaqui]

In googling, there are articles upon articles of why it can't work in the US.

 

I can find articles upon articles on lots of subjects and lots of points of view, but that doesn't mean they're all equally valid.

 

And yes, I do understand the numbers.  I just don't want that kind of system or government intervention.

 

Well, some of us do. Taxes are how you purchase civilization.

[bookbard]

It isn't equivalent to the child care benefit though which is available at higher rates and higher income. There has been a shift toward more for two income families and less for 1 parent at home families. 

 

 Sure, and the ones who really benefit off the increasing child care benefit money are the for-profit child care centres. I agree that there isn't a sense of community support for sah parents; for one thing, they do not advertise the parenting payment, you really have to dig to find out about it.  Oh, and the whole debate about paid maternity leave is all around 'getting women back into the workforce' not about what's best for the child and family. Australia is definitely not super family focused, but there are some safety nets at least (if you're educated enough or linked into supports to be able to find out about them anyway). 

[MotherGoose]

Not when you are getting all the social services the government provides.

Do they cut you off from services at a certain income level? Because the US cuts you off from lots of tax deductions after a certain level of income, while you still have to pay huge taxes to afford those benefits for others. If you get great social services and whatnot no matter your income, I could go for it. There is also ongoing discussion of reducing or ending social security and Medicare for high income retirees, never mind that they have contributed to the programs their entire working lives. But if the government will continue to provide all these services to everyone, I might be more supportive of government programs.

Edited December 6, 2016 by MotherGoose

[DawnM]

I can find articles upon articles on lots of subjects and lots of points of view, but that doesn't mean they're all equally valid.

 

 

Well, some of us do. Taxes are how you purchase civilization.

I very carefully said *I*. And I don't think you need to pay more taxes to have a civilization.

 

But again, this is opinion. My opinion. There are arguments to be made on both sides and people will have their opinions.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

 

 Taxes are how you purchase civilization.

See, we have to have functional, ethical government for this to be true here.  And I don't think that the government has proven to be trustworthy enough to pay it money to 'purchase civilization'.  That grieves me a great deal.  The contrast with how, for instance, friends from Germany and England feel about their taxes and what they get for that money vs. how Americans experience this is quite startling.

[frogger]

Maybe it is. I'm not sure.

 

But you aren't really thinking of it in a way that contextualizes it within an economy where no one would really be making profit, or takes into consideration what a profit is.

 

Not making a profit isn't the same as not having a reserve for slower times or downturns or to allow for increased expenses or buying new tools, etc. Those kinds of funds are part of what is necessary for running the business on a day to day basis. Accounting for inflation would also fall under that, though in the past when this viewpoint was common, inflation wasn't really a factor.

 

It also doesn't mean that you don't get paid - salaries including for the owner are part of business expenses.

 

Profit isn't even necessarily what might be plowed back into the business to make it larger or more efficient or somehow better.

 

None of that is profit. Profit is what is left over apart from the money that needs to be on hand, salaries (including savings and pensions etc), repairs to buildings or tools, education to keep employees working their best, and paying yourself for your work. It's what is left over after that.

 

The reasoning for seeing it as immoral is this: If you offer a product or service, what you charge for it legitimately needs to cover all of those expenses. That is the cost for production and your fair remuneration for your time and effort. But adding a % of profit to that - well, what is it that the customer is paying for, then? It isn't the materials or labour of making the product. It's a sort of phantom amount.

 

That's the reasoning people disapproved of profit - it was seen as greed and even stealing - charging people without providing anything for it.

 

People ran plenty of businesses under that kind of model, so I doubt that we'd see people suddenly stop doing so.. They would still need to make a living, in any case.

 

And it still requires people be paid fairly. (In fact in many cases there was an expectation that employees who had a trade would be making enough to save to have their own business eventually.)

 

But when we say there is a need for profit - earnings above and beyond what it costs to support all the people and resources involved in the product and service - this sort of extra argument, which some find compelling, starts to pop up. It's ok to pay low wages if that is all the business can support, so we can make a profit that goes to the owner(s). Otherwise the business will close and that is bad for everyone. We can oppose environmental regulation because we need to increase profit, which is what business is about - increased profit means the business is working well.

 

I don't find those ideas convincing, but many many people seem to. I think that the reason may be that they don't have a clear idea between the intrinsic cost of something, and making a profit, because as a society we seem to see making more money as a kind of unqualified good in business. Many people even seem to think it is ok for a business to break the law to make more money, if they can get away with it.

Though I can agree with some of what you say, I must add you left out supply and demand completely and how prices relate information about what people actually want. It doesn't really matter how much it cost to produce something if nobody wants it for that price.

[frogger]

Well, one thing that wouldn't cost a dime is for people to respect others rather than look down on them. It sure would make life easier regardless of pay.

 

 

Minimum wage is one of many variables in an economy. In some regions it will greatly affect employment and in others it may have little to no effect. It depends on the opportunities available and how far off the minimum wage is from what the market can bear. This is more obvious when you ask people what would happen if you made minimum wage $100 an hour because that is obviously far from the clearing price for labor. It does seem that States and not the Feds should choose what the minimum wage is. Obviously, rural Mississippi has different variables than Silicon Valley.

[Bluegoat]

Though I can agree with some of what you say, I must add you left out supply and demand completely and how prices relate information about what people actually want. It doesn't really matter how much it cost to produce something if nobody wants it for that price.

 

Yes, supply and demand do have an effect on price.  And probably no one will ever pay for things they don't want.

 

I guess what you are thinking is that it creates a signal to make fewer or more widgets?  That is true, but I tend to think this would still work on the basis of what sold.

 

We don't actually have to let demand set price, if we don't want to.  I could say "this is the price it cost me to make this widget, including my labour, and I'll sell it to the first person in line who can pay" rather than selling it to whomever would pay the most or setting the general price at what people would bear.

 

Now, that would be a decision I would have to make on a moral basis, because I thought asking for more for something people need or want more is wrong.  But - that is I think a valid argument - it's no less obviously true than "if it is a business you can charge as much as possible because the purpose of business is to make money."

 

Which was, way back when, my original reason for bringing up the idea that some cultures see profit as immoral.  We tend to take it for granted, not even question, a lot of the things that happen in our economic system.  We interpret them as simply the nature of the economic life.  But if we look at other places and especially at other times, we find a lot of these ideas are not natural in that way.  Other systems had different beliefs, or worked without aspects we think are required.  Just as we think its possible to have a system without slavery and in fact have one (even if its imperfect), others had systems where land wasn't seen as a commodity and they lived with that (even if imperfectly). 

 

What if we take a statement like "profit is the purpose of business" and question it, try and see what it might look like if we said "The purpose of business is to provide goods people need and want and to supply a means of living."  Something like that could change the whole conversation.  And yet as soon as anyone points out something that has been done differently elsewhere, people jump on it as if it is some denial that black is black.  And I really wonder why that is.

 

 Unless we can question these assumptions, we are going to be stuck in a hamster wheel when we talk about economic justice.

[FaithManor]

See, we have to have functional, ethical government for this to be true here.  And I don't think that the government has proven to be trustworthy enough to pay it money to 'purchase civilization'.  That grieves me a great deal.  The contrast with how, for instance, friends from Germany and England feel about their taxes and what they get for that money vs. how Americans experience this is quite startling.

Agreed. My sister in France is so happy to pay higher taxes because her health problems are taken care of which did not happen when she was living stateside. She is willing to exchange her taxes for quality of life.

 

Some of the highest taxed nations in the world have the highest happiness. Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway...

 

Americans have higher rates of just about everything negative, depression, health problems, work problems, pretty much everything. In many categories we are only a first world nation on the exterior, but barely better than a developing nation underneath. We have a lot of stuff, but not much joy of living. Add to that our incarceration rates, crime rates, ...

 

To be honest, we aren't getting much bang for the buck, and that says a LOT about our failing government! I think this is why many people do not want to give more money "to the man" because they don't seem to manage what they've got on behalf of the little guy instead just funneling it to their rich campaign contributors by creating legislation that benefits monied friends.

 

Again people need to embrace the fact that we aren't a republic though we look like one on the surface, we aren't a democracy, we aren't a social democracy, we are an oligarchy, in many ways a modern take on a feudal system just with less death at young age and starvation. There is a patina of acceptability, but the functionality is about the same. This is the United Corporations of America. We feed the oligarchy, the wealthy corporations in exchange for not an awful lot these days. Failing schools, failing infrastructure, zero health care for many, failing social safety nets, failing cultural support for the arts, failing legal system...The oligarchy has the money to purchase what it wants and needs without a care for the masses that work for their comfort. Very feudal even if it has the gloss of modern convenience and technology laid over it. I don't think there will be the demand for real change until people understand this.

 

It is what many philosophers predicted would be the outcome of unrestrained capitalism and unbridled profits seen as a okay moral goal.

[Bootsie]

Yes, supply and demand do have an effect on price.  And probably no one will ever pay for things they don't want.

 

I guess what you are thinking is that it creates a signal to make fewer or more widgets?  That is true, but I tend to think this would still work on the basis of what sold.

 

We don't actually have to let demand set price, if we don't want to.  I could say "this is the price it cost me to make this widget, including my labour, and I'll sell it to the first person in line who can pay" rather than selling it to whomever would pay the most or setting the general price at what people would bear.

 

Now, that would be a decision I would have to make on a moral basis, because I thought asking for more for something people need or want more is wrong.  But - that is I think a valid argument - it's no less obviously true than "if it is a business you can charge as much as possible because the purpose of business is to make money."

 

Which was, way back when, my original reason for bringing up the idea that some cultures see profit as immoral.  We tend to take it for granted, not even question, a lot of the things that happen in our economic system.  We interpret them as simply the nature of the economic life.  But if we look at other places and especially at other times, we find a lot of these ideas are not natural in that way.  Other systems had different beliefs, or worked without aspects we think are required.  Just as we think its possible to have a system without slavery and in fact have one (even if its imperfect), others had systems where land wasn't seen as a commodity and they lived with that (even if imperfectly). 

 

What if we take a statement like "profit is the purpose of business" and question it, try and see what it might look like if we said "The purpose of business is to provide goods people need and want and to supply a means of living."  Something like that could change the whole conversation.  And yet as soon as anyone points out something that has been done differently elsewhere, people jump on it as if it is some denial that black is black.  And I really wonder why that is.

 

 Unless we can question these assumptions, we are going to be stuck in a hamster wheel when we talk about economic justice.

No, we do not have to let supply and demand set price.  But, we have to ration goods and services in some manor.  If I produce one widget, set a price of $10, and 100 people are in line wanting to pay $10 for the widget, I have to decide who the one person is.  If I sell it to the first person in line, I am making a choice of how to ration the good--it is based on time and who was able to stand in line the longest (which comes with social justice issues.) 

 

Nobody is forcing someone who starts a business to do so to earn a profit.  If people wanted to start a business "to provide goods people need and want and to supply a means of living" they are free to do so. We do not see many people choosing to do that.  People are not forced to start, or be the owners of, businesses and are not told what the purpose of their business is.

[Bluegoat]

It's a catch-22 though.  You don't fund your government, you'll get poor services.  But more than that, it's advantageous to non-governmental entities like corporations to keep people dissatisfied with government, because then government will not have the ability to police the corporations.  They need a mandate and money to do that.  Insread, the corporations control the ledgislation to their benefit.

 

And so people think government is useless and croocked.

 

So the best people don't get into civil service...

 

And so on.

 

There's no way to break out of the cycle without bringing government and the oligarchy into balance, and the only way to do that is through government - making sure they have the power to balance commercial and private entities.