What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?

[momeNt]

Perhaps, but you are also subsidizing whoever profits from the sale of the food.

The question is..why is subsidizing the rich, through profit, considered good, while subsidizing the poor so they aren't hungry considered bad ?

I think they're both good.

That's not what subsidizing means.

subsidizingpresent participle of sub·si·dize (Verb)
Verb:
Support (an organization or activity) financially.
Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer


Support financially is not purchasing their products for them to make a profit. Support financially for be giving them money for something other than their product. Like giving them money for being a green energy company.

 

[piasabird]

So the poor are like illegal immigrants. Those poor people???

 

[Exterous]

Specifically where you state that only one 1% of workers are dependent on the minimum wage.

There is no single site that says that with numerical proof so you will have to run the numbers yourself. Most of that data comes from the BLS survey I already linked - mainly the age groups, married/unmarried, married with spouse present and the disparity in this category between men and women, SS bracket. Then comparing the number of those attending college
http://howtoedu.org/college-facts/how-many-people-go-to-college-every-year/
with this report about the numbers working:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/how-many-students-can-actually-work-their-way-through-school/258836/
And those under 25 living at home:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-01/boomerang-adults-recession-kids-at-home/56623746/1
Making sure to take into account those attending college while living at home:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48197155/ns/today-money/t/more-college-students-trading-dorm-home/#.UH7xMMU0WSo

And then this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608630238216692.html?grcc=88888&mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Which shows that 0.07% (30% of 50% to get .57M. .57m/73.9M)of workers are minimum wage single parents

And 25% (67% of 75% of 50%) of minimum wage workers are married with their spouse earning more than minimum wage.

Additionally if wages kept up with the increases in productivity of the workers from the years 1973 to 2011 as they did from the mid 1940s into the 1970s; then talking about supplements for people making the minimum wage or not much higher than that would probably not be a discussion.

Again - this only works when a set number of hours is mandated. The minimum wage could be set at $1,000 an hour but a single mother who is employed 5 hours a year is still going to need social programs to survive.

So getting back to the question of the original post. Workers has a whole should be paid in wage increases that is commensurate to increases in productivity.

As for a policy that might accomplish that.

I'd go with this suggestion

Except that suggestion won't cause workers to be paid in wage increases commensurate with increases in productivity. For that to happen you would have to have government mandate ALL wages. As we operate in a free(ish) market you have minimum wage raises decoupled from market forces. To mandate minimum wage be fixed to productivity is to invite wage pressure during a period of stagnating wages + increased productivity. This holds true if you index them solely to inflation as well. Not saying they can't be indexed at all - just that a single index that doesn't take into effect real wage increases/decreases is inviting problems

Another thing to remember is that workers who make more tend to buy more and their doing so increases certain tax revenues that apply to all people who purchase goods like the sales tax and fuel taxes, in addition to increasing the revenue of businesses they buy from.

Although their money doesn't go as far because the business owner selling the product was forced to raise prices in order to offset the pay increases he was required to make. I am not saying there wouldn't be any stimulation just that you are not going to see significant economic stimulation from a 16-25 year old single person. If economic stimulation is your goal - limiting it to this tiny section of the population isn't the way to do it

 

[3chordcharlie]

*Should* is an interesting word.

In a purely self-interested sense, the rich should subsidize exactly what they need to subsidize to continue having all returns from new technology and productivity accrue to 'ownership' rather than labour, without causing enough anger and poverty to produce open revolt.

OWS and other protests suggest the rich are doing very, very well in this endeavor; available evidence suggests they are treading very close to the line, but have not crossed it.

 

[rudeguy]

a good post to point out who is really being subsidized..

Food companies, ie ADM.
cell phone companies
healthcare providers.

That is where your money goes, not poor people. They don't eat money.

And everybody can own stock in those companies, but who owns more shares per capita, rich or middle class ?

The rich. Just one way the poor and middle class subsidize the rich.

Another example. Where we live we pay a fee for fire services. Everyone pays the same flat fee. The person with a $2 million house pays the same as a person with an $85k house.

Anither way. The rich don't make their own money. They get it from selling stuff for more than it costs to poor and middle class people.

Profit is a kind of subsidy for rich people. I'm not saying its bad, but that is what it is.

what kind of stuff do you smoke?

Rather than get into your strawman...please answer the two questions I did ask.

How is it fair that I have to work to pay for those things when others get them for free?
How is it fair that I have to work so other people can get those things for free?

 

[3chordcharlie]

what kind of stuff do you smoke?

Rather than get into your strawman...please answer the two questions I did ask.

How is it fair that I have to work to pay for those things when others get them for free?
How is it fair that I have to work so other people can get those things for free?

Do you, honestly, believe that you 100-200 times harder than a $0.25/hr line worker at an Asian shoe factory?

Fair has little to do with it.

 

[Tom]

That's not what subsidizing means.

subsidizingpresent participle of sub·si·dize (Verb)
Verb:
Support (an organization or activity) financially.
Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer


Support financially is not purchasing their products for them to make a profit. Support financially for be giving them money for something other than their product. Like giving them money for being a green energy company.

No, your definition fits exactly. "Support financially".

when purchasing a product you are giving them something other than what their product costs. Profit.

The definition fits just as well as saying that taxpayers are "subsidizing" the poor.

 

[lotus503]

Do you, honestly, believe that you 100-200 times harder than a $0.25/hr line worker at an Asian shoe factory?

Fair has little to do with it.

brings up an interesting point, I paid a ton in taxes last year, I'm not happy seeing that money go to wars I don't support and imperialism or lifetimes benefits for members of government I despise.

Maybe we can all sponsor stuff with our tax dollars and have it go where we want. I think the Right would be shocked and what does and does not get funded.

 

[rudeguy]

brings up an interesting point, I paid a ton in taxes last year, I'm not happy seeing that money go to wars I don't support and imperialism or lifetimes benefits for members of government I despise.

Maybe we can all sponsor stuff with our tax dollars and have it go where we want. I think the Right would be shocked and what does and does not get funded.

I think opt in taxes would be great. But the government does not want us to actually control where our money goes.

But you are missing the point. Obama is the one talking about fairness. About how we *ALL* need to do our fair share. Why is it that he isn't trying to get the 50% of people who aren't doing anything to do their fair share?

The answer is obviously that he still needs to buy their votes with my money.

 

[Texashiker]

But you are missing the point. Obama is the one talking about fairness. About how we *ALL* need to do our fair share. Why is it that he isn't trying to get the 50% of people who aren't doing anything to do their fair share?

When I first read that 50% I thought about people on welfare, or people who pay no incomes taxes, such as the working poor.

Then I read it again and thought about companies like google that offshore to reduce their tax burden, or companies like apple who have the majority of their manufacturing overses.

Neither group are paying their fair share.

What makes apple any better then a low income family with 3 or 4 kids that gets 4X back then they paid into taxes?

Apple rakes in a cool billion in profit, pays almost nothing in payroll taxes, social security taxes, little in property taxes,,,,.

How is paying the tax burden? The working middle class who have no children at home.

 

[lotus503]

I think opt in taxes would be great. But the government does not want us to actually control where our money goes.

But you are missing the point. Obama is the one talking about fairness. About how we *ALL* need to do our fair share. Why is it that he isn't trying to get the 50% of people who aren't doing anything to do their fair share?

The answer is obviously that he still needs to buy their votes with my money.

I am not missing the point at all, the point is we don't get to say where we want our tax dollar spent, we never have had a direct say in that outside of our votes.

All this talk about entitlement spending when that's where I prefer my tax dollars go.


I am all for society get more from the poor who abuse the welfare/entitlement system I am also for allowing those who are on welfare despite working two jobs to have better opportunity.


As far as taxes goes, I am more concerned with rich people having an effective tax rate lower than my middle class tax rate than I am poor people having deductions and loopholes that allow no net fed taxes.

If you want to complain about poor people paying no tax start blaming Reagan for EITC which is one big reason why poor have no net fed tax burden.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I think opt in taxes would be great. But the government does not want us to actually control where our money goes.

But you are missing the point. Obama is the one talking about fairness. About how we *ALL* need to do our fair share. Why is it that he isn't trying to get the 50% of people who aren't doing anything to do their fair share?

The answer is obviously that he still needs to buy their votes with my money.

The only people who are paying some version of 'fair share' are those of us too rich to get food stamps, and too poor to play accounting games with our taxes.

So basically the folks making 40-100k.

If you're making 200k, and struggling, it is because you are a spendthrift, and too irresponsible to play accounting games, and that means you're paying an inflated share, too. If you're making more than that, and struggling, you are too retarded to be worth worrying about.

 

[Icepick]

From this thread about homeowners subsidizing schools for the poor that have tons of kids:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2276858

ok, that thread changed my mind about homeowners (ie: me) paying for schools.
re: pay for schools or pay for more prisons

And in that case, i say the rich should substidize mandatory birth control for those who dont own homes!


What else SHOULD the 2% subsidize for?

/obligatory cable TV and iPhone 5

Actually, I'd take it a step further and say that wealthy school districts should have their tax incomes pooled with less fortunate ones so that every child has access to quality education. Additionally, we can shut down private schools and take the money that is wasted on tuition and send it to the public schools. They could then afford to add more quality educators to their staff and have money to provide text books and other learning aids. With a population full of well-educated persons we would be innovating and growing the economy by leaps and bounds. Democracy also functions better with a well-educated population. This would result in a win-win for everyone. How could anyone be against this?

 

[Tom]

what kind of stuff do you smoke?

Rather than get into your strawman...please answer the two questions I did ask.

How is it fair that I have to work to pay for those things when others get them for free?
How is it fair that I have to work so other people can get those things for free?

Actually you CAN work, you don't HAVE to.

Foodstamps. The government buys food to support the production of food. It subsidizes food producers so they make profits.

That is who you are subsidizing.

Now, the government could dump the food in the ocean or send it to Algeria, but they take part of it to feed people who are "poor" here in America.

Why do you object to the poor you are subsidizing, and not Archers-Daniels-Midland ?

Would it please you for there to be hungry children ?

If so you should be happy becasue there are plenty of hungry poor people in the USA.

The people who own ADM stock are not among them.

edit- oh yea, btw the 50% you think aren't doing their fair share is more like 8%. And they are almost all elderly or disabled.

The rest of the 50% work but don't make enough money to pay income taxes. They dO pay other taxes. Like some members of the military who DIE to protect all of us.

 

[Steeplerot]

With a population full of well-educated persons we would be innovating and growing the economy by leaps and bounds. Democracy also functions better with a well-educated population. This would result in a win-win for everyone. How could anyone be against this?

Carefully crafted think tank propaganda for decades now spewing bircher cult trickle down pseudo-economics and of course plain corporate PR spin for their own agenda of fleecing the taxpayer and the ability to buy out government of we the people.

And of course, the real problem, a whole shitload of working class folks who buy it against their own best interest.

This forum is full of these sad rather gullible folks. Good little consumer drones, who fall for any marketing campaign with catchy slogans and a "team" to get behind.

We now have the first generation of born and bred "corporate-citizens" Taylor made by propaganda their whole lives. Go fatcat America!

Rightwingers...stupidiest mfers on the planet.

 

[lotus503]

Carefully crafted think tank propaganda for decades now spewing bircher cult trickle down pseudo-economics and of course plain corporate PR spin for their own agenda of fleecing the taxpayer and the ability to buy out government of we the people.

And of course, the real problem, a whole shitload of working class folks who buy it against their own best interest.

This forum is full of these sad rather gullible folks. Good little consumer drones, who fall for any marketing campaign with catchy slogans and a "team" to get behind.

It would be pure comedy if it wasn't so sad.

if Say's Law was correct we wouldn't be hit with non stop advertising, its only correct when the constant barrage fools folks in to buying shit they simply dont need.

 

[Steeplerot]

It would be pure comedy if it wasn't so sad.

if Say's Law was correct we wouldn't be hit with non stop advertising, its only correct when the constant barrage fools folks in to buying shit they simply dont need.

Thank you for informing me of Says Law, sums my semi-rant up well.

 

[blankslate]

Again - this only works when a set number of hours is mandated. The minimum wage could be set at $1,000 an hour but a single mother who is employed 5 hours a year is still going to need social programs to survive.

She is but other people who are working more hours at an increased minimum wage would be paying more taxes and the increased taxes might allow more funding for subsidies for the minimal hour a year (5 hours a year is a rather low number though) mother while reducing the amount of subsidy funding that the people who are working at least 1/2 time need. And perhaps largely removing the subsidies that full time workers earning an increased minimum wage need.

Except that suggestion won't cause workers to be paid in wage increases commensurate with increases in productivity. For that to happen you would have to have government mandate ALL wages. As we operate in a free(ish) market you have minimum wage raises decoupled from market forces.

As was suggested if you linked the minimum wage to inflation if would be predictable as businesses could have some clue when inflation was going up and plan accordingly.

As for the skilled workers who make more than the minimum wage businesses would want to keep them and would likely scale their wages/salaries accordingly to keep them higher than minimum wage.

Although their money doesn't go as far because the business owner selling the product was forced to raise prices in order to offset the pay increases he was required to make.

This is the thing. We don't know that the affect of increasing wages would cause so much an increase in costs for businesses that it would offset the increased business from not only their own employees but also from other minimum wage workers who now have money to spend. We have tried only increasing the wages at a fraction of the increased productivity of the workers since 1973 to 2011.

And compared to the period of the mid 1940s to 1970s it failed.

We should go back to how it was when wages increased at a rate that was closer to productivity. The simplest way to do it is to increase the minimum wage to at the very least $8 an hour and make it be adjusted for inflation.

 

[Exterous]

She is but other people who are working more hours at an increased minimum wage would be paying more taxes and the increased taxes might allow more funding for subsidies for the minimal hour a year (5 hours a year is a rather low number though) mother while reducing the amount of subsidy funding that the people who are working at least 1/2 time need. And perhaps largely removing the subsidies that full time workers earning an increased minimum wage need.

Granted 5 hours is low but the point is not the likelihood of the wage or hours just that raising the minimum wage will not preclude the need for social programs. Given that companies are already increasing the number of part time workers at the expense of full time (ie giving them less hours) I think any plan that relying on increased tax payments or assuming the same hours worked to offset the cost is shaky at best

As was suggested if you linked the minimum wage to inflation if would be predictable as businesses could have some clue when inflation was going up and plan accordingly.

Being predictable does not remove wage pressure nor does it guarantee other wage increase.

As for the skilled workers who make more than the minimum wage businesses would want to keep them and would likely scale their wages/salaries accordingly to keep them higher than minimum wage.

Source?

We should go back to how it was when wages increased at a rate that was closer to productivity. The simplest way to do it is to increase the minimum wage to at the very least $8 an hour and make it be adjusted for inflation.

Do you have any links to any studies showing that increasing the minimum wage will cause wage raises in general to move closer in line with increased productivity? It seems to me it would be easier for businesses to make the 18 year old a part timer and cut his hours rather than raise everyone's wages. If the unemployment rate were low this would not be as manageable but with an unemployment rate of 17% it would be very easy to find another 16-24 year old willing to work part time

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm