|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th June 2018, 03:27 AM | #81 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
We can use history to see what happens with no "safety net" in our own countries and we can see what happens in countries that don't have one today.
It is exactly what you'd expect, poor people starve, live on garbage dumps, die from easily preventable and treatable diseases, die at comparatively young ages and so on. When societies organise we create safety nets. |
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
19th June 2018, 03:35 AM | #82 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
19th June 2018, 03:38 AM | #83 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
19th June 2018, 03:42 AM | #84 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
|
19th June 2018, 03:53 AM | #85 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
The approach in the book "Scarcity" (which is of course just one idea) is to compensate for the hypothesised observation that poverty "taxes bandwidth".
Which is to say, design things so that it is "easier to get back on the wagon" I suppose, so that failure becomes less path-dependent or self-reinforcing. The logic here is that bad-decisions-in-poverty are not (or at least not mainly) the result of character flaw, or even lack of education about "good choices". But it is partly caused by poverty itself taxing the ability to escape it. Mandatory classes in financial literacy (which someone else mentioned) probably miss the point.
Quote:
|
19th June 2018, 04:02 AM | #86 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
Many of such devices are used to avoid taxation so on the whole not really for them no matter how "letter of the law" they are. As a general principle - full taxation as if it was earned income.
Given our pseudo-capitalist system I can't see much changing until intergenerational inheritance is tackled. I know I am rather in the minority in that I see no reason why I am or should be entitled to my parents etc. wealth when they die so I really think we won't see any significant change in increased true "social mobility" in countries like the UK and USA. |
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
19th June 2018, 04:20 AM | #87 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
I think your previous post implied a 100% tax rate on inheritance . . . "full" in this case means what? Marginal income tax rate?
(ETA income from trusts is taxed, but the wealth is not and technically the wealth may never wholly pass to the beneficiary. Anyway don't worry about it; it is ridiculously easy to throw up quirks and inconsistencies and unintended consequences from tax design ad eternam and that is all I am indulging in!)
Quote:
Some objections to inheritance tax are about backwards: one hears that "this is a bad tax because the rich have more resources to avoid it", well true but if it was abolished then surely the rich would benefit most from the abolition too (including saving the resource expended on avoidance!) |
19th June 2018, 04:37 AM | #88 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
I'm quite sympathetic to this view, but I don't think the issue is whether or not the beneficiary is entitled to the inheritance, but whether or not the prior owner is entitled to do what they want with their wealth, including passing it on to their children.
It's hard for me to see an argument for why someone shouldn't be able to just give their wealth to someone of their choice, except in so much as our society might run more efficiently if they can't. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 04:43 AM | #89 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
I am all for that - as long as course the "gift" is taxable at the appropriate income tax rate. My comments were about inheritance and dead people can't gift or make any other decision! If you want your kids to have your wealth you need to transfer it when you are alive and they need to pay tax on that transfer no matter what means is used to transfer it.
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
19th June 2018, 04:45 AM | #90 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
ETA @ Robborama:
If you accept that someone no longer exists in any way after their death then that concern moves to unsafe philosophical ground (IE their wishes also cease to exist insofar as they affect the deceased) |
19th June 2018, 04:49 AM | #91 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 04:55 AM | #92 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
Since living wage is not law the statement isn't legally correct anyway.
|
19th June 2018, 04:58 AM | #93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
In reply to both Darat and Francesca as I think you both made the same point:
A person who writes a will is still alive when they are writing it. And people care about things (and are willing to spend money on things) that won't happen until after their death. For instance people take out life insurance policies and spend money paying their premiums based on potential outcomes that won't occur until after their death. I don't really see strong philosophical grounds for preventing people from making those sorts of decisions. As I said you may have a good practical argument (I actually think you do) for why we should structure our society to disallow* some subset of them, but I don't think we can make that argument just on principle. *Or, at least, tax at a higher rate. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 05:15 AM | #94 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
No, I would risk my life savings to open a business in order to make money. In the profit/loss calculations I would calculate that I pay my employees a fair wage as I consider it reprehensible to exploit someones desperate situation by paying them a sub-par wage and I would want to attract motivated people who will work better and thus make my business more successful if they are rewarded fairly.
And I also believe that in a fully capitalistic system such abuse is rewarded and that therefore the government should step in to prevent such excesses by putting up a minimum wage that enables one to live off of wages and at the same time taxes profit from companies that is not used to re-invest in the company or labor force to allow for temporary unemployment benefits so people can look for a new job without immediately losing their homes. |
19th June 2018, 05:21 AM | #95 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
I am pretty sure that various new forward transactions and contracts would quickly replace wills and probate if the latter were abolished anyway.
Better to simply have an inheritance tax. Conceptually better if it taxes beneficiaries not estates though. Such as, If I receive £200k from each of five wealthy deceased relatives I ought to suffer greater taxation than if I received $500k from one, but I would probably suffer less. (In the realm of nice problems to have, grief aside . . . ) |
19th June 2018, 05:47 AM | #96 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
|
19th June 2018, 06:38 AM | #97 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 06:56 AM | #99 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
I guess that means that you wouldn't have a problem with hiring someone part time and not paying them enough to live if they are working few hours if the hourly rate is high enough that they would be making a living wage if working full time at that rate. And of course conversely that you would have a problem if the rate/hour was lower than that.
Sounds reasonable. I'm actually not entirely sure what I think on this subject at the moment. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 07:22 AM | #100 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
In my case--that minimum wage should be set up to a level where it just starts to measurably influence unemployment. Not that this can be measured easily. On the evidence of those who have tried though this would indicate to me that minimum wage probably isn't "too high" anywhere.
(I seem to remember this view being courtesy of Paul Krugman but can't verify that) |
19th June 2018, 07:31 AM | #101 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
Sorry, that was a very quick answer. Yes, that's about it. It should be at an hourly rate sufficient, if worked full time, to live. I don't care if the person doing the job is a student, an OAP or even a child, a job that is essential to the running of the business should be paid enough to be someone's full time job and sustain them. If the job isn't essential to the business then one has to ask searching questions regarding the budding businessman's business acumen. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
19th June 2018, 08:44 AM | #102 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
No, but the fact that we automate more and more jobs DOES mean that eventually there will be less jobs available, thus I do feel that as a society we should institute a social security network to ensure we do not end up with a large amount of unemployed and unemployable underclass citizens.
Now I've heard the argument that for each job lost to automation a job opens up in IT, but not everyone capable of performing well at an automated job is able to perform well in IT or services. I gladly pay my taxes to ensure that others are able to live as well. |
19th June 2018, 09:44 AM | #104 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
It probably does not mean a job is needed in IT to operate the automatic thing.
"Why bother" is: now you can have both the automated job and the IT job done without needing a larger workforce. (The job created is probably more likely to be in something like healthcare though) |
19th June 2018, 09:52 AM | #105 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
|
It sounds like you've never run a business yourself.
So you're okay if I pay a "living wage" (i.e. $16 an hour) but hire 3 people to work 16 hours a week instead of a full time worker, or are you proposing a business owner pay each of these 3 workers $48 an hour because 16 hours a week doesn't generate enough salary? |
19th June 2018, 09:58 AM | #106 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
|
Of course then you would be relying on government to be responsible with that windfall, which I believe is a problem. The extra funds would become political pay backs in States where fiscal responsibility seems non existent.
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/20...-in-the-world/
Quote:
|
19th June 2018, 10:28 AM | #108 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
|
No attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are attempting to redefine the purpose of having a business. The primary purpose of a business is not to pay a living wage to its employees. The business should care for their employees as a social responsibility, but the business is likely to do what they legally are required to provide. I.e. pay a certain wage and provide certain fringe benefits. It is good that some companies pay more and provide better wages and benefits. But some businesses have smaller margins and may not be able to. Does that mean they need to shut their doors because they can only reasonable afford to pay $12 an hour instead of a living wage?
Quote:
|
19th June 2018, 10:35 AM | #109 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
I didn't say it was the primary purpose, where did you get that from?
A business has obligations, pay its bills, meet local and national regulatory standards and to pay a reasonable wage to its staff. If it can't do all of these, it is literally not a business, it's a loss making enterprise running for the ego of the owner.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
19th June 2018, 10:47 AM | #110 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
|
Here is where I believe the impasse occurs. If I run a small business and let's use a small shop as an example where I as the owner and operator, am the primary employee. But I hire 2 part timers to work weekends to allow for more customer access and give myself respite. I hire two high schoolers, both of whom have adequate food and, and a home to live in. The employees are happy to have a job so they can earn cash to go to the movies, to the mall and whatever else high schoolers do.
Let's say I can still make ends meet without opening my shop on weekends, thereby negating the need for any employees. How is this harmful to society and how are tax payers subsiding my enterprise? |
19th June 2018, 11:08 AM | #111 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
If you mean "should someone who works less than full time hours necessarily make a living wage?" , then I'd answer "No" although I don't think it's a bad aspiration.
If you mean "should someone who works a full working week but does so for more than one employer make a living wage?" then certainly. If fairness alone isn't a good enough reason then because otherwise living wage legislation would be trivially easy to evade. |
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
19th June 2018, 11:10 AM | #112 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
To each according to their need, that sort of thing?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
19th June 2018, 11:24 AM | #113 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
19th June 2018, 11:26 AM | #114 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,844
|
The issue with the living wage is that it's a moving target. For some states, $15 an hour might allow someone a comfortable living but you would probably still be struggling if you lived in New York, California or Hawaii and some other states.
My state (Hawaii) had legislation proposing a $15 minimum wage in 2020, but it did not pass. The current minimum wage is $10.10 per hour. Ironically, the State of Hawaii (government) is the largest employer and during the vetting of the bill, discovered that 1600 government workers earn less than $15 an hour and while it wasn't stated, I believe that played a role in the bill getting canned. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3...s-minimum-wage |
19th June 2018, 11:35 AM | #115 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
You can’t even define a living wage uniformly across the board. A high school student in rural Texas has a very different “living wage” than a single mom trying to make ends meet in NYC. $15/hour isn’t even going to come close to what that NYC mom needs to live in that city but would be entirely too high for that rural student.
It’s an illusion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
__________________
Hello. |
|
19th June 2018, 11:54 AM | #116 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
|
19th June 2018, 12:05 PM | #118 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
That was my salary when my wife and I were first married, with a child: $36k/year gross. We had an apartment (2-bedroom), could afford internet and cable, owned a car, and while we didn't live lavishly we weren't bad off (and definitely were not living like monks). And we did without government assistance. That is a liveable wage in some areas. Admittedly, I do live in one of the lower cost-of-living areas...it would have definitely been a struggle in someplace like New York or L.A.
I agree there are issues here that need to be addressed, but incorrect facts and needless hyperbole don't do anything to advance the discussion. |
19th June 2018, 12:21 PM | #120 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
$15 an hour isn't $36k a year. And while you were living on that, were you able to save for your kid's college? Retirement? Put money aside for emergencies? Save for a house? But maybe we define "liveable wage" differently. To me, a liveable wage means not having to live paycheck-to-paycheck in a ****** apartment with a broken down old car praying an emergency doesn't happen.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|