Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 498 posts

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#471

Post by specialist »

ikeboy wrote: post #411
rskar wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting what you've given us to consider, in regards to "charity benefiting its owner", to suggest these two things as comparable: (1) insufficient wages (per Adam Smith) as set by private enterprise (2) private enterprise usage of services/infrastructure as provided by government above and beyond their share of taxes Walmart was in the news recently enough ( http://www.msnbc.com/martin-bashir/mcdonalds-employee-…

My point was the reverse, actually. We're fine with companies benefiting off roads, because they pay taxes. Roads are a public good funded with public funds. I think we should be just as fine with companies benefiting from the public good of welfare. If we don't think it's a public good, we shouldn't fund it. Now, if they were directly contributing to an increase in public funding, then we might wish to discourage th…

Which companies pay taxes comparable to the benefit they receive from society?

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#472

Post by erroneousfunk »

petra wrote: post #250
kough wrote: post #29

> No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available The main drawback to a minimum wage is that it artificially increases the cost of labor, to the point where it's no longer worth it to an employer to hire a low-output employee. I think we'd all agree that increasing employment is a good goal, but an increased minimum wage actually hinders progress on that front. As the m…

>> Down Syndrome [0] .. are they worth hiring at $2.00/hour? Yes, and they and their families are willing for them to work at that wage, because there are huge benefits to being productively employed. Realistically, for people with disabilities that aren't being able to be in the regular labor market, there are some societal useful things to do, like volunteering(say in a soup kitchen), helping their community,etc. T…

That's sort of how it works in the US, with a caveat. My SO runs a group home for intellectually disabled adults. Most of them are able to work for less than minimum wage, and they learn basic money management skills, have a checking account, and are able to buy "extras" like iPads and more expensive clothing, or tickets to concerts/events (all their basic needs are met already).

When they aren't able to work, it's usually because they're extremely disruptive, unable to cope in a work environment, and/or profoundly disabled, and volunteering in a soup kitchen/helping the community in lieu of "a job" probably isn't going to work out so well. It would be more of a burden and resource cost to have them monitored and supported than the benefit received by the organization. Instead, they go to day programs that have job training (if possible), therapy, and more one-on-one support in a dedicated environment. Volunteering is definitely available if they want to do that, and are able to, but it's not really a "oh, if they can't make money, we'll have them work for free" type of situation.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#473

Post by erroneousfunk »

petra wrote: post #330
ksenzee wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know exactly how you're picturing the US, but it's not as dystopian as you seem to think. We do in fact have soup kitchens and volunteer opportunities and people with Down's Syndrome who contribute meaningfully to their communities. (What we don't have a lot of anymore are factories. Go figure.)

Didn't mean to offend anybody, but just by hearing about a lot of mentally ill people being homeless in the US, i got a bad impression. But i may be wrong. And it's not necessary a factory. It's not hard to create awful work environments.

There's a big difference between mental illness and intellectual disability. I supposed you could argue that they're the same and should be treated the same, but, in practice, they're treated and generally thought about very differently in the US.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#474

Post by ikeboy »

specialist wrote: post #471
ikeboy wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was the reverse, actually. We're fine with companies benefiting off roads, because they pay taxes. Roads are a public good funded with public funds. I think we should be just as fine with companies benefiting from the public good of welfare. If we don't think it's a public good, we shouldn't fund it. Now, if they were directly contributing to an increase in public funding, then we might wish to discourage th…

Which companies pay taxes comparable to the benefit they receive from society?

You're missing the point. If the benefit was equal to the taxes paid, there's be no point in having taxes. Taxes should produce a net gain, so the benefit needs to be, on average, worth more than the taxes. We need to look at the amount the government spends on them.

And yes, this will automatically be around as much as the average company pays in taxes. If the total spent is equal to the total collected in taxes, then the average company has as much spent on it as it pays in taxes. The differentiation among companies/individuals is government picking winners and losers. Just like the fact that the wealthy pay more in taxes and the poor receive more means the government is picking certain individuals to have more spent on them. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just what society decides.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#475

Post by p4wnc6 »

dvtv75 wrote: post #430
p4wnc6 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a problem if all of the would-be employers look at you and say, "Well, for what you bring to the table, I would be willing to pay $3/hour, but no more. If I have to pay more than that, I will simply make do with life having fewer employees." You would prefer $7/hr instead of $3/hr, but you would prefer $3/hr instead of $0/hr.

My employer, who hired me for my degree, told me that he was willing to pay me for 40 hours. I later found out that it was a requirement that I work 60-80 hours a week - not written into my contract, but this particular employer has an aversion to providing contracts. This displaces up to an entire employee. Said employer also gets taxpayer funding for the employee I've displaced. I would prefer that my employer met…

To put things in perspective a little, my younger brother works as an inventory clerk for a company that makes custom industrial fasteners in the Midwest, US, and the working conditions you describe are actually better than his working conditions -- though I wholeheartedly agree that both of you have unfortunate working conditions and more should be done to improve the situation.

If your situation is so extreme as to involve threats of violence, then it is non-negotiable that you need to remove yourself from it, even if it means facing grave and dire financial hardship. The psychological damage of an employer threatening you is worse than the damage of financial ruin or uncertainty.

Also, on one hand you are claiming that minimum wage laws are beneficial, but then you're also saying that the political favoritism of your country allows those laws to be basically ignored (as in your case) with no consequence.

To me, your comment is much more about ensuring legitimacy of government and enforcement of laws overall, and is very much unrelated to minimum wage at this point. Only after the enforcement of those laws is legitimized can you then begin to ask questions about what is the actual human effect of the law.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I already said this type of reasoning (the argument that minimum wage denies opportunity to those who would agree to work for less) is overstated. I understand the economic rationale in the ideal case, and I was explaining that case just to clarify for the OP that I commented on ... not positing it as a robust defense or anything.

Here's my other comment if interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424743 >.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#476

Post by specialist »

ikeboy wrote: post #474
specialist wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which companies pay taxes comparable to the benefit they receive from society?

You're missing the point. If the benefit was equal to the taxes paid, there's be no point in having taxes. Taxes should produce a net gain, so the benefit needs to be, on average, worth more than the taxes. We need to look at the amount the government spends on them. And yes, this will automatically be around as much as the average company pays in taxes. If the total spent is equal to the total collected in taxes, th…

there'd be no point in having taxes

"Taxes" is just the revenue column for society's ledger.

You're missing the point.

I also didn't make my point very well:

For the last 40 years, society's tax burden had steadily shifted from corporate profits to labor. In other words, people now subsidize business.

Now that corporations are people (too), it's unfair to exclude them from the opportunity to subsidize business.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#477

Post by ikeboy »

specialist wrote: post #476
ikeboy wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. If the benefit was equal to the taxes paid, there's be no point in having taxes. Taxes should produce a net gain, so the benefit needs to be, on average, worth more than the taxes. We need to look at the amount the government spends on them. And yes, this will automatically be around as much as the average company pays in taxes. If the total spent is equal to the total collected in taxes, th…

there'd be no point in having taxes "Taxes" is just the revenue column for society's ledger. You're missing the point. I also didn't make my point very well: For the last 40 years, society's tax burden had steadily shifted from corporate profits to labor. In other words, people now subsidize business. Now that corporations are people (too), it's unfair to exclude them from the opportunity to subsidize business.

>"Taxes" is just the revenue column for society's ledger.

Yes, and if the societal benefit to sociatal spending was less than the cost of revenue, then it's a net loss to society to have such a thing.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#478

Post by specialist »

ikeboy wrote: post #477
specialist wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there'd be no point in having taxes "Taxes" is just the revenue column for society's ledger. You're missing the point. I also didn't make my point very well: For the last 40 years, society's tax burden had steadily shifted from corporate profits to labor. In other words, people now subsidize business. Now that corporations are people (too), it's unfair to exclude them from the opportunity to subsidize business.

>"Taxes" is just the revenue column for society's ledger. Yes, and if the societal benefit to sociatal spending was less than the cost of revenue, then it's a net loss to society to have such a thing.

Okay. I'll consider that viewpoint. My local peeps discussing policy (eg tax breaks for job creators) ask similar questions, like if current policies achieve the desired outcomes. I'm all about pragmatic incentives; aka what ever works.

Meanwhile, I'm still chewing on two other notions.

"Taxes" is the government's way to stimulate demand for money. Kinda flips the model on its head, reversing the flow of information, which is not yet intuitive for me.

Taxes and procurement are just means to transfer wealth.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#479

Post by JonFish85 »

jrs235 wrote: post #452
JonFish85 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? As I said, it would take the combined wealth of the top 1000 wealthiest Americans to pay for the federal budget for one year. Pretty quickly you run out of people whose money you can take without getting to the middle class. No matter how you slice it, the real money is in the middle class.

When people talk about raising or lowering taxes they are usually talking about income taxes (not property taxes). I'm suggesting we tax all property (assets/wealth).

What does that change? As I said, the combined net worth (everything that they own: cash, property, stock, etc) of the top 1000 richest Americans pays for the federal budget for one year. The only way to raise enough money to pay for things is to make the middle class pay the bulk of it. Whether it's via income tax, net-worth tax, etc, there simply isn't enough in "the 1%" to pay for things.

And that's not to mention that you're essentially taxing the same assets multiple times. The stock that, say, Zuckerberg owns was already taxed when he received it. You're asking to re-tax the same thing over and over and over again. This sort of taxing already exists (property tax & excise tax come to mind), but I'm not really sure what sort of gain you think would come of it.

No matter how you run the numbers, the money comes from the middle class.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#480

Post by rconti »

msellout wrote: post #170
alttab wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust me, its not mortgage interest rate deductions that are driving up demand and prices for homes. Overseas buyers paying all cash are driving up prices - and stock markets pumped full of zero interest cash are causing soaring prices. If you are suggesting that mortgage interest rate deductions are fueling another housing bubble, then we are about to witness another amazing sub-prime real-estate crash. Considering…

The mortgage interest deduction started in 86. Or rather, the isolation of mortgages as tax deductible started in 1986. The effect has been in place for longer than the more recent trends you're describing. I suppose that means I don't trust you?

You're overthinking it. Once again, I say, I am not talking about bubbles, I never said "more recent trend."

It's very, very, very, very simple. You could afford $500k without the interest deduction. Let's say the deduction helps you afford a monthly payment on a $550k mortgage. Now you can afford $550k. The same is true of all other potential buyers of the same property. Guess what, a $500k property just became a $550k property.

I didn't ask you to trust me, I didn't say anything about "more recent trends," I didn't cite it as a cause of the bubble, I didn't mention dinosaurs.

I merely said I don't see how the mortgage interest tax deduction actually helps anybody, because it causes prices to rise accordingly.

Post reply on HN