Tax the 1%...

Screw that evil idea.. how about requiring wel fare recipients to provide evidence they are trying to improve their situation before having their benefits continued?

Hand up yes, hand out no.. and yes that goes all the way up to corporations.

Wellfare should be considered an investment in making people better , not just helping them scrape by in perpetuity.

 

That's absolutely not a "tax". What you're talking about is a government seizure of the wealth of its citizens. That's unconstitutional. That's VERY unconstitutional.

The definition of "tax"...

What you're proposing isn't a tax by any stretch. It's theft plain and simple.

 

I look at it like this: You pay people in the unskilled sector enough to live, but not so much it will overly burden an enterprise. If you don't, individuals will need a certain amount to live so they will be forced to go on food stamps, and other public assistance, to make up the difference. So, If you do that, what that is is corporate welfare, because the 'assistance' is, in essence, given that the amount is what the company should have paid the person, an indirect payment of welfare from taxpayers to corporations. A recent example was where ( I think it was in Seattle ) Walmart had solicited donations to help their employees get enough for food. That really happened, and it's an outrage that billionaires like the Walton family ( or whoever owns it now ) can't pay the bottom rung enough to pay for food? I should think that the superrich could easily manage to live on 6 spoonfuls of caviar instead a 10, so that people at bottom can afford bread to eat. ( that's a metaphor , in case someone is metaphor challenged ).

Because of that fact, there must be a minimum wage sufficient to live, not for production considerations, but for the reason of preventing individuals from seeking public assistance to make up the difference of what they need to live on and what the companies would be trying to get away with. In my view, in a given region, it would be enough to pay for rent, good, clothing, sundry items, and a modest amount of disposable income above that. Nothing extravagant. If the rents are, in a given city or region, vastly disproportional to other living expenses compared to most of the US, and additional program to prove low income persons a partial rent subsidy to lower their share of rent to 1/3 of their income.

I propose a commission to study the needs of each region, and establish what income level should be in the various regions and counties in the united states. Establish federal base line, lowest amount needed for the least expensive regions, making that the minimum, then enact legislation commanding regions to set minimums to correspond to the federal study. If a city or region believes the study is wrong, they can conduct their own study, and appeal the guideline set for that region, and get approval to install their own minimum wage. This is the objective and there are probably more than one way to achieve the same result.

 

Not sure about the constitutionality of this.

 

the top 1% have 40% of the nation's wealth. The top 20% own ninety percent. The number is in the trillions, and much of it is hidden.
They are vastly richer than they ever were in history. This is because the rich have been lobbying for special treatment.
they have plenty, and I'm not talking about an entrepeneur neuveau riche type, a guy who starts with an idea, and works hard and becomes wealthy because of it. I'm talking about dynastyism, wealth that accrues without work, that is passed from generation to generation, and is growing at a rate vastly faster than wages are, and their share of the pie is getting bigger and bigger and the gap between them and the rest of us is growing wide and wider. That's a problem that needs fixing. Trump just ended the estate tax, which repubs conveniently labled 'the death tax', well, that tax only affects 5000 families. But, they made it sound like everyone pays a death tax. They are very clever. Dems seek to put a spotlight on the evil things repubs do in manipulating public opinion.

It's not just the rich, it's rich religions who pay no tax, but run their church's like businesses. You must realize that when a church pays no tax, and they enjoy societal benefits just like everyone else, well, the difference has to be paid by the taxpayer. In a sense, by not taxing churches, that's mixing church and state because it is, in essence, a taxpayer subsidy when they do not pay taxes. Taxing religion would yield billions to the US Treasury. Scientology doesn't pay nickel, and they have billions in the bank, so they say, yet they run their operation exactly like a business, with a sales force, a legal division, they pay commissions to salesman, sell books and courses, it's a big business, and they get away with paying no tax because they hired a team of lawyers and private investigators to intimidate the IRS into submission. This kind of crap needs to stop.

Republicans don't care about the gap, but democrats do because if not corrected, things are going to get very bad , indeed, for the common folk. The rich will reach a point where they wield so much power that they become unaccountable. On the public sector, there are black projects to the tune of trillions, that are off budget, and are turning into a runaway civilization accountable to no one, paid for by the taxpayer. Something should be done about that, as well Many of the 'black projects' are actually illegal, but the military industrial complex is so powerful no one can do anything about it, not even the president. Eisenhower, in his last speech warned us about it.

 

Everyone has to work for what they want, and there should be no exceptions made for able bodied people between the ages of 18 and 70. If you fund people beyond the period of the involuntary hardship, you are making exceptions for them. That's unfair, inequitable, and elitist.

If I were in charge, I'd have a very long list of behaviours and choices which would cancel or reduce welfare payments. EG gambling, alcohol, drugs, fast food, cigarettes, tattoos, cosmetics, vacations, tvs, non-essential cars or car types, living in expensive cities, netflix, iphones, etc. And only groceries on a specified list would be funded. If you want to eat cheese and meat instead of beans and rice, pay for it yourself. The taxpayer should not have to buy you the unhealthy food AND pay for the poor health which will result from it.

 

Is this a joke? Virtually all over the Western World, the most Progressive (aka, Leftist) cities have the largest wealth gaps.

Until Progressives can explain that, pretending it's the other way around is grotesque. And don't bother claiming it's the weather. It's true in all Progressive cities/states, no matter where they are.

 

There is no 'sufficient'. Every person will use the same amount differently, because HUMAN NATURE.

I can live on $100 a week, while my neighbour thinks he needs $400. Same 'rent', same location, same cost of living.

 

It takes money to make money. Wealthy people tend to become richer because they invest their money. To suggest they only get rich because of "special treatment is ridiculous. Do they get breaks from congress? Absolutely. They'd be dumb to not take advantage of that. The people you should be pointing the finger at is the politicians.

Wealth can only accrue without work if there was hard work and risk to gain the wealth in the first place. There is nothing wrong wrong with people inheriting money. It does not need fixing. Quite frankly what is in a person's bank account is none of your business or the governments. The estate tax is theft. It taxes wealth that has already been taxed at an exorbitantly high rate. So much so that many people who inherit businesses have to sell them to pay the tax. Where is the fairness in that? The dems have had many opportunities over the years to "fix" this problem and never did. Mainly because many of them are multi millionaires.

I have no problem with churches paying taxes.

Please stop with the democrats are better than republicans crap. The democrats are no better. Take the disheveled Muppet Bernie Sanders as a perfect example. He has run for president twice. Both times he ran on a platform of income equality, Medicare for all, free college etc. He vowed to right all the wrongs you have described. What in the name of the queen's corsets has been doing in congress for the past 29 years? Congress is where the laws are made. That is where the problems are fixed. And yet all he has done in nearly 30 years is author 7 bills and get rich. Why would a congress full of multi millionaires pass legislation that would take vast amounts of their own money. If you really think democrats are any different than republicans you are naive at best.
Mod Edit/Flamebait

 

I more or less agree

 

Well, I could learn how to live off the grid and spend less than that.

If we want to create a policy we go not by anecdote, but by reasonable expenditures a typical person would spend on basic necessities of life.

You contention that it would vary widely isn't reasonable. It could, for eccentrics, but we don't base policy on the actions of eccentrics, such as someone could go totally off the grid and spend nothing, or next to nothing, and should we create policy just because it is *possible* to do it?

I think not.

 

A tax is whatever our legislature decides it is.

In the meantime,

In 2005 or thereabouts, I saw Trump on TV proposing a one time 25% wealth tax. Sure, he changed his opinion later, he's something different now.

I'm going to look for that video, it must be somewhere.

 

You are definitely not a libertarian. Milton Friedman, the grand kahuna of "Free To Choose" philosophy, libertarian economics ( chief economic advisor to Reagan) supported a negative income tax over welfare. The reason? Because with a negative income tax, poor people would be brought up to just above the poverty level (without the massive red-tape riddled welfare administration which comes with welfare), and the government would have no say in their purchases. See, he's the real 'small government guy' all you conservatives who think like you do are only paying lip service to it. You don't want government on the backs of affluent and middle class people, you only want government on the backs of poor people. You should jump out of your own skin listen to how you sound.

 

Yawn. You are playing pretend. Given the US has such low social mobility, you have certainly concluded that the people are feckless. I appreciate mind you that you might want to claim a lack of logic as a defence.

 

Sounds like you've accidentally replied to me. No worries, it happens.

For accuracy, I corrected someone else's comment that minimum wage increases occur without increases in production. Productivity is endogenous.

 

No, a tax is what our legislature manages to pass into law as a tax. Until then, it's just a pipe dream.

A seizure-of-wealth tax is nothing but an unconstitutional leftist pipe dream. That crap died with Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign, and good luck to any politician who tries it again.

Be sure to let me know when Trump's former unconstitutional 25% wealth seizure pipe dreams become reality.

 

Credible links, because I wholly disagree.

 

Something chosen randomly: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/defau... wages and firm productivity NIESR DP 449.pdf

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. The link between minimum wages and productivity is accepted. The debate is on the source. A right winger, for example, would ramble on about temporary shock effects (and ignore efficiency wage discussion)

 

It is not 'corporate welfare' if the skill level of the position is minimal. Again, are you aware of what demographic makes up 'minimum wage' workers? What percentage of the working population makes minimum wage?

Those two facts have a huge impact on the claim that minimum wage needs to be a 'living wage', much less claiming it is the employer's responsibility to provide and ensure each worker has sufficient income to support their style of living.

Your entire proposal makes false assumptions that it is anyone but the worker's responsibility to ensure their financial well being. Until you understand that fact, you will continue to try and place the onus on others, and forgive the worker for not increasing their own market value.

 

The living wage and minimum wage are certainly distinct. The latter is ultimately a reaction to monopsonistic competition. We know that supply and demand analysis predicts that it is integral in ensuring that exchange is exhausted (e.g. see the research on oligoponistic competition and how equilibrium unemployment rises without the minimum wage). The living wage is much more. It is attempting to change the nature of capital-labour relations. By eliminating profiteering opportunity from low wages, it encourages upskilling and restricts structural deficiencies created by short term exploitation.

 

The foundational premise of the UK and the US are entirely different when it comes to working, self support and financial variables. Showing some basic differences, the UK income tax is between 40-50% (versus US 0-35%) so in order to support the higher levels of government provided services, individual's pay must be higher to create the revenue. It doesn't mean their work has more value/production, but the government wants a higher share.

And a left winger would ignore all implications of government involvement in free market enterprise.

The snotty side comments are devaluing to an intelligent discussion, and entirely unnecessary, but I will play tit for tat if you insist.

 

You have bad ideas about what makes a country good. And you won't let anyone know what country you're from. Im still guessing france. Where the women have more hair than than the men. And the men stink but are great at surrendering.

 

Friedman wanted to replace cash benefits, food assistance, medicaid, and all other income based social services with a negative income tax. Is that what you are supporting?

 

Yawn. Social mobility created through merit is a jolly thing. That you don't give a toss about US social immobility only really means you don't care for merit.

 

The Negative Income Tax was essentially rejected as it didn't work: it either led to too low minimum income or too high tax.