What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Should 16year old HS student be paid a liveable wage?

What about an adult whose job skills or equal, or maybe worse, than the 16 year old.


You are trying to use a blanket statement.

If a company can afford to pay its employees well, why shouldn't said company be required to?

Apple makes a cool billion in profit, but yet a record number of people are on welfare.

Nobody sees an issue with that?

Or roads are falling apart, but foxxconn in china is hiring tens of thousands of employees.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Because we live in a Democracy, where a poor man's vote counts as much as a rich man's.

Who do you think will collect 5% on those bonds, anyway? Poor people?

who is benefiting from those bonds anyway? Poor people!
More more disproportionately also.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
How bout the rich just give back to the gov't all of those billions and billions of $$$ they got from corrupting our politicians into giving them all of those favorable exclusive tax breaks, corporate welfare, loopholes in the tax code, all the policies/legislation that tilted the economic playing field all their way, the blood money they got from Bush starting his shock and awe war in Iraq and on and on and on BEFORE we even consider how this disingenuous idea of subsidizing the poor is discussed?

I would assume that you are either
  • in school or
  • out of school and
    • have paid off any loans related to school and
    • do not have a house
    • do not have children.

Otherwise you are one of those you just called out for
favorable exclusive tax breaks, loopholes in the tax code
.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
It's never about "should" the rich man subsidize the poor, it's always been screwing the top income group that isn't some party's voting base and give it to the larger mid - low income group, the voting base of that certain party, to secure more vote, and claim moral superiority, social justice...

It's not hard to see what that certain party is trying to do. Communists has used the same method to vilify and screw those who contribute the the country and the economy, those who created jobs and invested, just so they can gain the support of the mass lower income and use those people to gain power. And I am sure those communist has done well for their countries.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,193
17,888
126
It's never about "should" the rich man subsidize the poor, it's always been screwing the top income group that isn't some party's voting base and give it to the larger mid - low income group, the voting base of that certain party, to secure more vote, and claim moral superiority, social justice...

It's not hard to see what that certain party is trying to do. Communists has used the same method to vilify and screw those who contribute the the country and the economy, those who created jobs and invested, just so they can gain the support of the mass lower income and use those people to gain power. And I am sure those communist has done well for their countries.

So GE not paying income tax AND get government subsidy is good in your books.

http://payupnow.org/

I don't see 1/3 of my income because it is source deducted as income tax. I would like to see something similar happen to companies, maybe a lower percentage, but I would like to see it happen.


I love the whole corporation is a person except when it comes to income tax bit.
 
Last edited:

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
It's not hard to see what that certain party is trying to do. Communists has used the same method to vilify and screw those who contribute the the country and the economy, those who created jobs and invested, just so they can gain the support of the mass lower income and use those people to gain power. And I am sure those communist has done well for their countries.

So its ok for companies like google to setup offices in Ireland and Bermuda to avoid paying US taxes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...011/mar/24/google-ireland-tax-reasons-bermuda
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
So GE not paying income tax AND get government subsidy is good in your books.

http://payupnow.org/

I don't see 1/3 of my income because it is source deducted as income tax. I would like to see something similar happen to companies, maybe a lower percentage, but I would like to see it happen.


I love the whole corporation is a person except when it comes to income tax bit.


So its ok for companies like google to setup offices in Ireland and Bermuda to avoid paying US taxes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...011/mar/24/google-ireland-tax-reasons-bermuda


If those companies violated tax code, let IRS go after them. But don't tell them that they "should" subsidize the bottom income earner just because they make money.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,193
17,888
126
If those companies violated tax code, let IRS go after them. But don't tell them that they "should" subsidize the bottom income earner just because they make money.

The system is rigged, that is the point.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
So GE not paying income tax AND get government subsidy is good in your books.

http://payupnow.org/

I don't see 1/3 of my income because it is source deducted as income tax. I would like to see something similar happen to companies, maybe a lower percentage, but I would like to see it happen.


I love the whole corporation is a person except when it comes to income tax bit.

http://research.scottrade.com/qnr/Public/Stocks/Financials?symbol=GE

12 months ending 12/2011 paid >$5 billion in taxes.

Now, could you please explain to me the difference to you in having money deducted from your pay check and pay the same amount of taxes at the end of every quarter?

EDIT: And I believe it is perfectly legal to not have income taxes deducted and instead make quarterly estimated tax payments. But considering that creates a lot of extra hassle for you almost no one does that.
 
Last edited:

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?

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

Funny, I bet you didn't complain when you went to school using the same money.

You don't like it?

Leave the country immediately, it's not for you.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
If those companies violated tax code, let IRS go after them. But don't tell them that they "should" subsidize the bottom income earner just because they make money.

Loopholes allow companies to offshore so their tax burden will be reduced.

There is nothing illegal about it.

The question asked in the opening post "What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?"

If free trade loopholes, and tax loopholes were closed, jobs would be created and the "rich" would not have to subsidize the poor.

There was once a time when products where built in the USA, such as train tracks, cars, trains, car parts, steel, ships, drilling rigs,,,, people were able to get a job, able to buy a home and start a family.

Free trade and tax loopholes have destroyed the American dream.

Instead of asking about jobs, we are asking if the rich should subsidize the poor.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,193
17,888
126
http://research.scottrade.com/qnr/Public/Stocks/Financials?symbol=GE

12 months ending 12/2011 paid >$5 billion in taxes.

Now, could you please explain to me the difference to you in having money deducted from your pay check and pay the same amount of taxes at the end of every quarter?

EDIT: And I believe it is perfectly legal to not have income taxes deducted and instead make quarterly estimated tax payments. But considering that creates a lot of extra hassle for you almost no one does that.

Difference is I have to claim refunds. Why Shouldn't companies?

The restatement fixed the issue. Good. Tax is less than 10%???? Love how in 2009 there is negative tax...
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,193
17,888
126
Says who? someone who can't hack it in this system?


I am in the top 10% (well, here in Canada). I can hack it. But I can see there is a problem with the system.

The better off the lower income people are, the less we have to help them.

A lot of problems we are facing are borne out of greed. See XL Food for example.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Difference is I have to claim refunds. Why Shouldn't companies?

You only have to claim refunds if you have your taxes improperly deducted.

As I said I believe it is perfectly legal to deduct 0 income tax and make quarterly tax payments just like companies.

When are you going to start doing that?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,193
17,888
126
You only have to claim refunds if you have your taxes improperly deducted.

As I said I believe it is perfectly legal to deduct 0 income tax and make quarterly tax payments just like companies.

When are you going to start doing that?

I don't think it is legal up here to not do source deduction. I am just pointing out the monetary advantages for the corporations on tax timeframe ie quaterly vs bi-weekely. No, I am not saying I want corps to pay bi-weekly.
 
Last edited:

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Loopholes allow companies to offshore so their tax burden will be reduced.

There is nothing illegal about it.

The question asked in the opening post "What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?"

If free trade loopholes, and tax loopholes were closed, jobs would be created and the "rich" would not have to subsidize the poor.

There was once a time when products where built in the USA, such as train tracks, cars, trains, car parts, steel, ships, drilling rigs,,,, people were able to get a job, able to buy a home and start a family.

Free trade and tax loopholes have destroyed the American dream.

Instead of asking about jobs, we are asking if the rich should subsidize the poor.

Free trade =/= tax loop holes. There are ways to close tax loopholes, IRS is auditing Google to see if they violated asset transfer policies by transferring taxable income to tax free offices. There are ways to close the loopholes, at least somewhat, and get companies for doing something improper. It is something that tax authority should look into and decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Free trade on the other hand, is entirely different story. Yes it has shifted wealth to those who has the skill, the knowledge to take advantage of the free trade, take advantage of the industry, the things US does well, like banking, services, high value added technologies and products, and do well for themselves, and those who doesn't have the skills, the training, were left behind. But it is the way of global economy. If US doesn't do free trade, Japan, Germany, China, and other countries well. The entire US would have been left behind instead of a small group of people.

Should rich subsidize those who doesn't have the skills and training? There are already plenty of programs. But lots of people don't take advantage of those program, don't want to move, don't want to get new skills. Just expecting handout because they think they are entitled. Well, that's too bad, world change and if people don't adapt, others don't have the obligation to help you.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,796
572
126
How about paying their employees a liveable wage?

You're right if people were paid at the very minimum a livable wage, a lot of problems would eventually be solved as people who now have a bit more money would immediately spend that money on buying new things that they could not previously afford or by paying off bills sooner.

Links below.

From what this article
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/y-big-story-minimum-wage-gets-195821330.html
indicates.

  • If wages were indexed to inflation since 1968 wages, which is the high point of American purchasing power, the minimum wage would be $10.58.
  • If wages rose at the same rate as executive salaries, the lowest-paid worker would make a whopping $23/hour.
I suppose the 1968 year is quoted because the $1.60 minimum wage for that year was actually enough to be considered a livable wage.

Chart of minimum wages by year for use with www.bls.gov inflation calculator which the yahoo article links to.




Corporations are sitting on large reserves of cash and say "we're uncertain."

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/0...ing-on-500-billion-which-could-create-2-4-mi/
http://live.wsj.com/video/us-corpor...C4.html#!18B5C621-2154-49CD-AE1F-A52673D989C4

According to the above two links the amount they are sitting on is between 500 billion and 2 trillion dollars.

Raising the minimum wage would be a way of making them "invest" more in their workers.

Those workers having more cash in hand would actually buy more thus putting more money back into retailers hands or pay off bills in a more timely manner since right now at the current $7.25 federal wage; they're likely to be just scraping by as the above information linked to seems to indicate.

Also according to author Hedrick Smith who wrote Who Stole the American Dream?
from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s the average productivity of workers in the middle class almost doubled. Likewise the wages almost doubled in the same period of time.
From mid 1973 to the year 2011 the productivity of the workers in the middle class increased by 80% while wages increased by 10%


Here is a link to an interview with the author
https://rapidshare.com/files/2857919471/Who.Stole.the.American.Dream.mp3

His statement about productivity and wages starts at about 7minutes and 30seconds into the sound file.




There are people argue that costs in wages depresses employment opportunities. However new research is disputing that.
And really how hard would it be on the economy if minimum wages kept pace with inflation. After all as noted previously in the yahoo.com link....
If the minimum wage kept pace with the pay increases of executives it would be $23 dollars an hour.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/u-s-minimum-wage-lower-than-in-lbj-era-needs-a-raise.html

This is one of many reasons that critics, including business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and many Republicans, oppose minimum-wage increases. The argument is that it will hurt the very people it was meant to help by forcing employers to cut jobs, raise prices or both. They point to studies that minimum-wage increases hurt teenagers, because young workers typically get minimum-wage jobs, which become scarce when employers are forced to raise salaries.

But a wave of new economic research is disproving those arguments about job losses and youth employment. Previous studies tended not to control for regional economic trends that were already affecting employment levels, such as a manufacturing-dependent state that was shedding jobs. The new research looks at micro-level employment patterns for a more accurate employment picture.

The studies find minimum-wage increases even provide an economic boost, albeit a small one, as strapped workers immediately spend their raises. A 2011 paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that a $1 minimum-wage increase lifts household income by about $250 and increases spending by about $700 a quarter in the following year. The spending increase is driven by a small number of households that primarily buy vehicles.

No Employment Effects

A team of economists, led by Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, compared employment levels in contiguous areas with disparate minimum-wage levels over a 16-year period and concluded in a 2010 paper there are &#8220;strong earnings effects and no employment effects of minimum wage increases.&#8221;
The links in the above quote will take you to the references cite in the bloomberg article.



One last thing.

Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
The above quote is from someone laissez faire proponents like to quote. Something about the invisible hand.
 
Last edited:

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
You're right if people were paid at the very minimum a livable a lot of problems would eventually be solved as people who now have a bit more money would immediately spend that money on buying new things that they could not previously afford or by paying off bills sooner.

Links below.

From what this article
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/y-big-story-minimum-wage-gets-195821330.html
indicates.

How do you mandate a 'livable' wage when the government cannot force an employer to schedule someone for a set number of hours?

I also think its important to note that most people making minimum wage are not trying to live on it. By far the largest segment (~50%) of the population making minimum wage is 16-25, single and childless. (From the BLS survey on Minimum wage) Why does a 17 year old living at home need to make a 'livable' wage? Less than 1% of the workforce actually depends on the minimum wage to live

While obviously wages have stagnated, I don't believe there is any proof that raising the minimum wage would increase the wages of anyone other than those making or almost making minimum wage.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
By far the largest segment (~50%) of the population making minimum wage is 16-25, single and childless.

Proof to backup your statement?

I might agree that 17 or 18 and under would be childless.

But once you hit that 19, 20, 21, 22,,,, range, I would expect to see a child in there.

Then what about urban and rural populations? Where does that 22 year old single mom working at walmart factor in?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I suppose the 1968 year is quoted because the $1.60 minimum wage for that year was actually enough to be considered a livable wage.

They pick 1968 because it was the highest minimum wage in the history of the country.

graph.png


Because obviously the highest is "correct"
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Then what about urban and rural populations? Where does that 22 year old single mom working at walmart factor in?

Being a single mother with no job skills is incompatible with reality.

Why should walmart be expected to subsidize single mothers?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Being a single mother with no job skills is incompatible with reality.

Why should walmart be expected to subsidize single mothers?

Walmart can either pay the employee a liveable wage; or, we can all pay higher taxes to provide welfare.

Take your pick.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Walmart can either pay the employee a liveable wage; or, we can all pay higher taxes to provide welfare.

Take your pick.

But you see the problem here is that the livable wage will differ by employee

A single 22 year man with no kids needs a lower livable wage than 22 year old single mother.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
But you see the problem here is that the livable wage will differ by employee

A liveable wage will also differ by employer and location.

A mom and pop corner store will not have the cash reserves as say apple, exxon, walmart,,,,.

Rent in rural Texas will not be the same as say LA.