He already supports corporate welfare, and sees no problem with Walmart and the major fast food chains paying their full time employees so little they need to be on government assistance.

The only problem he sees in this is that the employees are given food stamps instead of cash.

That's right: private employers are under no obligation to pay you enough to live off of, working full time, but the government is.

Maybe we should just move all the low wage earners into government subsidized housing, so the taxpayer can support them almost entirely, so the corporation they work for doesn't loose any profit.

(April 16, 2014 at 12:08 pm)KUSA Wrote: I'm thinking about how this negative income tax coupled with no minimum wage would work.
So everyone gets subsidized by the government to make a minimum salary. At the same time corporations can pay as low as they want. What will happen is the corporations will pay $1 an hour and the government will pick up the rest of the tab.
This smells like corporate welfare.

Negative Kusa,

The wealth that is redistributed from the rich too the poor cannot come from the government because the government does not create wealth.

It ultimately comes from the rich and the corporations who must pay higher positive taxes so that the poor can receive negative taxes.

If you insist on viewing the government picking up the tab for the poor...then be fair and see that it is the rich and the corporations who would be picking up the tab for the government.

Some of the advantages of the negative taxes is this.
1. It doesn't mess with the labor market.
2. It eliminates the need for social security, unemployment compensation, disability, welfare, WIC, Food stamps, heating assistance, housing assistance, tuition assistance, Obama phones, etc.
3. It eliminates all the bureaucracy and waste that comes with having to administer everything which makes up 2.
4. It closes the disparity in standards of living between the poor and the rich(with minimal impact to the rich).

Negative income tax is stupid. Most of the recipients will starve sitting in front of their wide screen tvs while they shoot up drugs. All paid for by the negative income tax.

(April 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm)KUSA Wrote: Negative income tax is stupid. Most of the recipients will starve sitting in front of their wide screen tvs while they shoot up drugs. All paid for by the negative income tax.

Translation: Poor people are too stupid to take care of themselves properly and need people like KUSA to do it for them.

That is essentially your elitist position isn't it?

---

(April 16, 2014 at 12:13 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The only problem he sees in this is that the employees are given food stamps instead of cash.

That's right: private employers are under no obligation to pay you enough to live off of, working full time, but the government is.

Rampant, I asked (I believe it was you specifically) why is it that everything else is valued by what people are willing to pay for it....labor should be an exception to that rule?

Your answer:

(April 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm)KUSA Wrote: Negative income tax is stupid. Most of the recipients will starve sitting in front of their wide screen tvs while they shoot up drugs. All paid for by the negative income tax.

Only if they remain ignorant and/or stupid. If we have a lot of people who would misuse money if given enough to live on, then we can either find ways to limit their freedom or we can educate them on how to spend and save and live within their means and build a nest egg. The USA has become a society that lives and dies by credit instead of savings, and too many of us spend far too long painfully ignorant of how money can be made to work for us instead of only the other way around.

If I knew at 18 the things I know now, I'd be retiring right about now (at 45). And I don't mean knowing which stocks would increase in price or which super bowl bets to make or anything like that. Just an understanding of how time and compounding can work to build wealth with a bit of patience and some self-discipline. The problems of the poor need to be approached from both ends-- making compensation more reasonable and teaching people how to make money work for them.

(April 16, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(April 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm)KUSA Wrote: Negative income tax is stupid. Most of the recipients will starve sitting in front of their wide screen tvs while they shoot up drugs. All paid for by the negative income tax.

Only if they remain ignorant and/or stupid. If we have a lot of people who would misuse money if given enough to live on, then we can either find ways to limit their freedom or we can educate them on how to spend and save and live within their means and build a nest egg. The USA has become a society that lives and dies by credit instead of savings, and too many of us spend far too long painfully ignorant of how money can be made to work for us instead of only the other way around.

If I knew at 18 the things I know now, I'd be retiring right about now (at 45). And I don't mean knowing which stocks would increase in price or which super bowl bets to make or anything like that. Just an understanding of how time and compounding can work to build wealth with a bit of patience and some self-discipline. The problems of the poor need to be approached from both ends-- making compensation more reasonable and teaching people how to make money work for them.

Most poor people are fairly responsible with their money. They eat, they feed their kids, they shower and wear clean clothes, they sleep in a warm bed, etc. However there seems to be the mentality that we should manage the lives of all the poor people in order to protect the few self destructive ones(who are going to find ways to be self destructive anyways).

I whole heartedly reject this mentality.

(April 16, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: Translation: Poor people are too stupid to take care of themselves properly and need people like KUSA to do it for them.

Every year when the Earned Income Tax is handed out the sale of TVs and other non essential items are purchased at an alarming rate. I know people that get it and they always blow it on stupid shit. Shortly afterwards they are broke and can't buy essentials.

What they should do is save most of it to help them get through the rest of the year.

Being poor doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid but most of them are. That might sound mean to you but is true nonetheless.

(April 16, 2014 at 12:57 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(April 16, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: Translation: Poor people are too stupid to take care of themselves properly and need people like KUSA to do it for them.

Every year when the Earned Income Tax is handed out the sale of TVs and other non essential items are purchased at an alarming rate. I know people that get it and they always blow it on stupid shit. Shortly afterwards they are broke and can't buy essentials.

What they should do is save most of it to help them get through the rest of the year.

Being poor doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid but most of them are. That might sound mean to you but is true nonetheless.

Many if not most people who are poor end up middle class. Income mobility is very fluid in this country.

Why is that you think if a poor person's income comes from Walmart they won't blow it....but if it comes in the form of a negative income tax from the government (supported by taxes Walmart pays) they will blow it?

(April 16, 2014 at 11:20 am)Heywood Wrote: Then when they argued that a minimum wage was necessary to prevent blacks from undercutting white labor(and thus put their negro hands and feet on the economic ladder) you agree there is some truth to that argument?

Um, no. Where did you get racial inequality out of anything I said?

Quote:I answered your question about who would close the disparity....My solution is the negative income tax that guarantees everyone a basic income.

Oh, so you mean the solution is in federal government. I agree.

Quote:I am advocating we don't price ex-cons out of the labor market and thus prevent them from climbing the economic ladder. Give them an option to work instead of crime....If you do some might reform.

I agree, ex-cons should receive the same minimum wage anyone else does... and an employer should be able to review one's criminal history and factor that as a decision in the hiring process. And the minimum wage should be far higher than what it currently is. I contend that our economy would do better if more people had more money to spend on goods and services.

It doesn't have to come from the government for them to blow it. Hell if they found it in a bag in the ditch they would still buy the TV instead of essentials.