Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 363: SEC Speed

(+) Yeah! (+)

*steadily increases the price of college*

wHy cAnT tHe pOOrS fiND a bEttEr jOb?

Inviso posted...

It sounds like those jobs should be paid more as well then. And someone was talking about price freezes, so that would prevent inflation, wouldn't it?

If you wanted companies out of business sure. You can't increase expenses and not increase income.

If other jobs raise just as much, you just raised the poverty line and achieved nothing.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

*steadily increases the price of college*

wHy cAnT tHe pOOrS fiND a bEttEr jOb?

It's almost like there is a problem with the price of college and it's unrelated to minimum wage

---

masterplum posted...

It's almost like there is a problem with the price of college and it's unrelated to minimum wage

No, it isn't unrelated. Both are linked to wages in this country not ever being adjusted for inflation.

---

In 2009 if you were lucky enough to work 40 hours a week at minimum wage, after rent you'd be left with $192
In 2021 if you were lucky enough to work 40 hours a week at minimum wage, after rent you'd be left with -$343

Conservatives: "I see no problem with this!"

---

masterplum posted...

It's almost like there is a problem with the price of college and it's unrelated to minimum wage

I'm talking about the cost of everything else but minimum wage increasing putting the poor further and further in a hole and raising the gap of the rich more and more.

"But I didn't know ecomomy relate to each other?" - You, probably

PerfectChaosZ posted...

It rises anyway.

Yeah this is insanely dumb, especially considering federal minimum wage applies to what? 20% of the population? Not to mention the million of other things that impact the price of commodities.

This is as stupid as a ben garrison political cartoon.


---

masterplum posted...

It's almost like there is a problem with the price of college and it's unrelated to minimum wage

They seem to think if inflation occurs naturally that super charging it is okay then cuz why not it already happens in some form anyways.

Your car is eventually gonna get ruined so let's go smash the fuck out of it now. What's the difference. It is eventually gonna happen anyways! Literally the dumbest argument I have ever heard, and I think it was posted seriously too.

If people weren't willing to work those minimum wage jobs, they would have to raise the wages to get employees. Stop choosing to work those jobs if you aren't comfortable with your pay.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Conservatives: "I see no problem with this!"

That's the thing, conservatives DON'T see a problem with this. They're not being ignorant, they WANT an underclass

---

Hbthebattle posted...

No, it isn't unrelated. Both are linked to wages in this country not ever being adjusted for inflation.

Dude. The price of college negatively effects people who are making $15 an hour too. Raising minimum wage would not fix that problem at all

---

If I wanted more than the minimum wage I would simply choose a job that paid more
---

Raising minimum wage isn't a problem. The problem is your current job is already devalued. Raising min wag isn't going to solve that problem of being devalued.

You only think you are valued because the min is already piss poor.

---

Sorozone posted...

Raising minimum wage isn't a problem. The problem is your current job is already devalued. Raising min wag isn't going to solve that problem of being devalued.

You only think you are valued because the min is already piss poor.

What does this even mean? Low wage workers are already being replaced by robots. Why do you think people aren't valued highly enough?

---

If businesses can't afford to pay their workers a living wage than they shouldn't be in business. Driving them out is a good thing.
---

If you have to be a super-genius to go to college if you're poor then only a tiny percentage of poor people will ever go to college. Just enough for those in power to say, 'see? Fair!' Because the average people will of course be left behind. But this isn't true for the rich. Even their most most most dumbass kid goes to college and gets a degree and becomes the average person's boss- and those kids are dumb enough to think that they're automatically the boss because they worked harder to get there? When? It was because once you're paying to go to college they aren't going to kick you out so even the most absolute idiot will eventually get their degree, but the average intellect poor person can't even go. So now you have dumb people with all the degrees and they think they're getting better jobs based on their merit and not their wealth because they paid a bazillion dollars for a paper with a sticker on it that says "Great job!"

So these dumb people become the boss! And if this was a problem it would get worse every generation wouldn't it? So what a minute- you're telling me that if you increase the price of colleges only the dumbest richest people will get the best jobs? Wouldn't that hurt the entire country? Well let's see if we can observe this in society; yes! Take a look at our government because is run by some of the dumbest people in the entire world. On both sides! They're idiots! And it's only gotten worse. They just keep getting dumber! And it trickles all the way down! The bosses are the dumbest and richest and then their dumbass kids get the advantage and are even dumber! That's the real trickle down economics; bullshit!

masterplum posted...

Dude. The price of college negatively effects people who are making $15 an hour too. Raising minimum wage would not fix that problem at all

it wouldnt fix the problem, but to say that colleges getting more expensive while wages stay the same isn't a porblem that should be approached from both ends is foolish

---

Hbthebattle posted...

it wouldnt fix the problem, but to say that colleges getting more expensive while wages stay the same isn't a porblem that should be approached from both ends is foolish

You need ALL wages to increase at the same speed as costs, not the minimum.

The problem with college is the same as the problem with healthcare. Colleges can charge whatever the hell they want and people will still pay for it

---

Sorozone posted...

Raising minimum wage isn't a problem. The problem is your current job is already devalued. Raising min wag isn't going to solve that problem of being devalued.

You only think you are valued because the min is already piss poor.

I didn't say it isn't already possibly being devalued. I said it will be devalued even more much faster and significantly. You either make both into the lower class or you raise both equally keeping the low class still the low class. Neither party had offered a solution of taking from the rich to solve that issue. Both are fighting to protect the rich.

---

masterplum posted...

What does this even mean? Low wage workers are already being replaced by robots. Why do you think people aren't valued highly enough?

Maybe the fact that tech companies like Uber lobby to pass huge laws in California that ensures that people's labor remains undervalued. Seems like an obvious indicator while we wait for the automated driving revolution.

---

Driving out business owners who can only sustain their business on slave wages is a good thing indeed.

Protip: most of those small businesses WON'T go out of business. The business owners will begrudgingly accept net income of 430k versus the net income of 470k they had the year prior, despite the loud obnoxious stink they'll raise.

---

I feel like the number 1 thing socialists miss in these conversations is that evil rich people aren't going to just take the L. If there are ways to loophole around improving people's lives they will do it, either by cutting hours, cutting benefits, or just going out of business and moving to Ireland.

You have to hit rich people where it is completely unavoidable, non avoidable personal income tax. Billionaires can pay A LOT of lawyers to weasel out of everything else.

Then you can use that money to directly help poor people

---

masterplum posted...

I feel like the number 1 thing socialists miss in these conversations is that evil rich people aren't going to just take the L. If there are ways to loophole around improving people's lives they will do it, either by cutting hours, cutting benefits, or just going out of business and moving to Ireland.

You have to hit rich people where it is completely unavoidable, non avoidable personal income tax. Billionaires can pay A LOT of lawyers to weasel out of everything else.

Then you can use that money to directly help poor people

So in other words, never do anything because rich people will squirm out of literally ANYTHING that hurts their bottom line.

---

masterplum posted...

I feel like the number 1 thing socialists miss in these conversations is that evil rich people aren't going to just take the L.

That's what guillotines are for

---

UBI is a good idea because at *minimum* it would allow people to afford food and shelter. Y'know those basic things for not-dying.

Minimum wage is not in a great place because even with a 40 hour week (which is not guaranteed) it will be a struggle to afford food and shelter.

Yes, raising the minimum wage will affect the economy in a variety of ways, and some companies may raise some prices by a certain amount. But the most significant initial benefit will be that people earning minimum wage will now have to struggle less to afford food and shelter.

And at some point you have to look at that and realize that the good outweighs the bad. Yes it wont be all good for everyone, but for the people it WILL be good for, it could be life changing.

But hey, if we can instead get UBI instead then keep the minimum wage where it's at, but it doesn't seem like UBI is in the cards right now.

---

Inviso posted...

So in other words, never do anything because rich people will squirm out of literally ANYTHING that hurts their bottom line.

I said what you had to do in that exact post

---

masterplum posted...

I said what you had to do in that exact post

And I saw that and repeated to you that they will find a way around it. There is nothing "unavoidable" when it comes to the super rich. How do you think they became super rich in the first place?

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Yes, raising the minimum wage will affect the economy in a variety of ways, and some companies may raise some prices by a certain amount. But the most significant initial benefit will be that people earning minimum wage will now have to struggle less to afford food and shelter.

Thank you for living in the real world. Of course raising the min wage will have long-reaching affects, including making *some* wealthy people slightly less wealthy, but the most significant effect will be, as you said, helping people who really need help.

---

Inviso posted...

And I saw that and repeated to you that they will find a way around it. There is nothing "unavoidable" when it comes to the super rich. How do you think they became super rich in the first place?

It's a thousand times harder to get around personal income tax than any of the roundabout ways to hurt rich people. Economists in general advocate for a corporate income tax of near zero because corporate income taxes are dumb and don't achieve anything other than companies obfuscating how much money they actually are making. The rise of the golden parachute came about specifically in response to laws that tried to punish executive pay. They just changed from executive pay to executive stock options

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

UBI is a good idea because at *minimum* it would allow people to afford food and shelter.

sure until the price of food and shelter just so happens to rise the exact same as the UBI

---

Im pretty sure Im the only Irish resident here, and I can say with some confident that if they think a slight increase in regulations in the US is too much, they wont like being in Ireland or the EU at all. You come to Ireland for single market access, not because Americas too left wing. And thats not even getting into the housing crisis. Ireland is very expensive these days.

Of course, again the actual solution is A) global cooperation, and B) making it harder for companies to do so.

I feel like masterplum is really on the cusp of realising some fundamental truths about capitalism, but isnt quite there yet.

---

I'm pretty sure most people here would be ok with raising personal income tax rates on the wealthy while also supporting an increase in minimum wage. We can and should do both.

---

masterplum posted...

It's a thousand times harder to get around personal income tax than any of the roundabout ways to hurt rich people. Economists in general advocate for a corporate income tax of near zero because corporate income taxes are dumb and don't achieve anything other than companies obfuscating how much money they actually are making. The rise of the golden parachute came about specifically in response to laws that tried to punish executive pay. They just changed from executive pay to executive stock options

And if you start taxing them personally, they just move to a country where the tax burden is less expensive, but their immense wealth will still allow them a comfortable lifestyle. That's nationalism for you.

Note: I'm not saying DON'T tax the wealthy more. I'm just saying "Just tax them more and do nothing else" won't have the effect you think it'll have, thus rendering the goal of it relatively impotent without reaping any of the benefits that other solutions would offer.

---

masterplum posted...

It's a thousand times harder to get around personal income tax than any of the roundabout ways to hurt rich people. Economists in general advocate for a corporate income tax of near zero because corporate income taxes are dumb and don't achieve anything other than companies obfuscating how much money they actually are making. The rise of the golden parachute came about specifically in response to laws that tried to punish executive pay. They just changed from executive pay to executive stock options

Or - and stay with me here - we tax both corporations and wealthy individuals

---

DeepsPraw posted...

sure until the price of food and shelter just so happens to rise the exact same as the UBI

Citation needed.


---

I wonder if people realize they have these things elsewhere and it went well lol

---

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CorporateTaxation.html

Most economists agree that the corporate income tax causes two major inefficiencies. First, it penalizes the corporate form of business organization because income is taxed first at the corporate level and again when paid to stockholders as dividends. A traditional justification for singling out corporations is that they receive special benefits from the state and should pay for them. There are two problems with this rationale: first, if it were true, then all corporations, not just profitable ones, should pay; second, current corporate tax rates seem disproportionately high for this purpose. But the fundamental problem with this traditional justification is that it harkens back to the eighteenth century, when a corporate charter carried with it state-granted privileges such as monopoly power or exemption from specific laws. Today, corporations are created by private contract, with the government acting merely as registry and tax collector.
Recent experience shows this disincentive to the corporate form of organization at work. U.S. companies with thirty-five or fewer shareholders can elect what is called Subchapter S status. So-called S corporations have taxable income passed through to the tax returns of the owners, as in a partnership, instead of paying the corporate income tax. In the five weeks surrounding year-end 1986, after enactment of the tax reform bill, which raised the effective rate of corporate taxes, 225,000 companies elected Subchapter S status, compared with 75,000 for all of 1985.
The second major flaw in the corporate income tax is that it misallocates capital by favoring the issuance of debt over equity because interest payments are tax deductible, while dividend payments are not. This favors investments in assets more readily financed by debt, such as buildings and structures (which can be used for many purposes, and thus are more easily used as collateral for loans) over investments more logically financed by stock, such as specialized equipment or research and development. In addition, the deductibility of interest payments favors established companies over start-ups because the former can more easily issue debt securities. Some economists, focusing on this last phenomenon, have argued that this feature makes the corporate income tax a tax on entrepreneurship. During the 1980s, U.S. corporations issued huge amounts of new debt. Corporate bondsoutstanding increased from less than $500 billion in 1980 to $1.4 trillion in 1988. At the same time, many corporations reduced their outstanding equity by buying back their own shares. The increased emphasis on debt financing was much more pronounced in the United States than elsewhere. In 2003, Congress took a step toward leveling the playing field by creating a special top tax rate for dividend income of 15 percent (previously, it was taxed as ordinary income at rates as high as 38.6 percent).


---

While we no longer grant outright monopolies like the East India Company enjoyed, there are clearly significant advantages to the corporate form. The most important of which is that the shareholders have limited liability. Moreover, double taxation isn't an issue for many of our largest and most successful corporations because they don't pay dividends anyway.

I think it makes a lot more sense to make dividends tax-free than to not tax corporations.

---

The modern way of paying dividends is to buy back stock. Because that one isn't taxable, or if the shareholder sells, it is often taxed at the long-term capital gains rate.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I wonder if people realize they have these things elsewhere and it went well lol

Irelands minimum wage isnt as good as the proposed US one, but its nearly double the current amount! All that corporate flight will be disappointed.


---

Here's the thing:

-People should be able to afford food and rent if they work 40 hours a week.

That's it. Pretty simple, really.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Here's the thing:

-People should be able to afford food and rent

i'd shorten it to this tbqh but i guess that's a different conversation

---

xp1337 posted...

i'd shorten it to this tbqh but i guess that's a different conversation

I don't disagree. But right now we aren't even at that point! Like I think at bare minimum people should be able to agree that if you work 40 hours a week (nevermind that there are people who can't get 40 hours of work, even when they want more time) you should be able to afford food and rent. That they can't, is just insane.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I didn't say it isn't already possibly being devalued. I said it will be devalued even more much faster and significantly. You either make both into the lower class or you raise both equally keeping the low class still the low class. Neither party had offered a solution of taking from the rich to solve that issue. Both are fighting to protect the rich.

Ah yeah, the real way to stick it to the rich is to lower the minimum wage. That logic tracks.

---

i mean, the issue with setting that standard to working a 40 hour week is that there's a lot of people that don't have 40 hour weeks right now.

food is a bit weird in that you can get around it a bit by offering services for it. using nyc as an example: schools carry community meals between 3-5 (noon to 3 on holidays) during the weekdays, where anyone can go pick some food up. it's basic school food stuff like milk, cereal, sandwiches, muffins, fruits, etc but you certainly will not starve, it's free, it employs staff when kids do not exist, and there's no technical limit to how many meals you can ask for. this probably can't be done in suburban or rural areas with the efficiency here but that shit's great in cities. and of course, this is irrelevant to EBT, which you can get separately and there's a lot of stuff you can get there.

if there's good social programs for food, the issue then becomes rent.
a freeze on evictions just means you're evicted later so that's a problem.

---

Rent is an issue of the market being trash. There's not enough affordable housing, developers seek profits and so increase the rent or build more expensive apartments, low financial incentives to build low-income housing to demand and to top it all off nobody wants it to be built near them once you clear the rest of the hurdles.

This is something UBI helps with but doesn't effectively solve because the real problem are these structural issues. Could work as a quick bandaid for a while until housing is built, though.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Here's the thing:

-People should be able to afford food and rent if they work 40 hours a week.

That's it. Pretty simple, really.

That just doesn't work though. What if someone is born with a physical disabiltiy and can't walk. Does that person person deserve a minimum wage job? What about someone who is constantly absent because of mental illness? A 15 year old? Someone living in downtown San Fransisco? Does rent with 6 roomates count as affording rent?

Tying a minimum amount required to work doesn't make sense when minimums are so dramatically different for different people. We don't need rubber room jobs where peopel are bored silly because they aren't capable of real work

---

masterplum posted...

That just doesn't work though. What if someone is born with a physical disabiltiy and can't walk. Does that person person deserve a minimum wage job? What about someone who is constantly absent because of mental illness? A 15 year old? Someone living in downtown San Fransisco? Does rent with 6 roomates count as affording rent?

Tying a minimum amount required to work doesn't make sense when minimums are so dramatically different for different people. We don't need rubber room jobs where peopel are bored silly because they aren't capable of real work

This was addended soon after, but the work requirement was brought up because too many people refuse to accommodate "lazy" people that "don't want to work". Thus, it makes for an even more difficult sell than raising the minimum wage already is.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ah yeah, the real way to stick it to the rich is to lower the minimum wage. That logic tracks.

Cuz that was said.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Cuz that was said.

Corrik7 posted...

If anything they should lower the minimum wage.

---

Lol you literally just cut out half of what you actually said lolololol. That's kindergarten shit.

---