Want to pay NO income tax? Cut welfare.

[payb.tc]

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications.

in other words, the true market price of labor in your area is much lower than $10/hr.

probably held artificially high by regulators.

[1714785767]

1714785767

[1714785767]

1714785767

[1714785767]

1714785767

[fgervais]

My daughter handles job applications for a company. She told me at the last opening there was ($10/hr, 40/week, benefits) there was over 500 applications.

in other words, the true market price of labor in your area is much lower than $10/hr.

probably held artificially high by regulators.

No. My own wild guess, though a wild guess tempered by a couple years of HR management jobs, is that the people must be applying on some dying career.

I worked as a manager in a security firm at different times during college (including off semesters to pile up cash to pay for the damn thing), over here guard jobs were worth around 13$. Woop-dee-fucking-doo I hear you say, 13$ to watch paint dry.

However, the amount of people that came in with CVs full of manufacturing experience (even some at technical or regular college levels) that were ready to take a 50%+ (90% in some cases) cut in salary just so they could get more than welfare was staggering, and yeah, I actually had to shut out an astounding amount of people.

Same goes for recent immigrants with educational background not recognised by my local professional orgs. I had a site literally staffed with post-doctorates that were in the process of doing n amount of college years required to get back up to spec.

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

[payb.tc]

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

sorry i was off-topic, talking about minimum-wage laws, not welfare.

[fgervais]

Let me guess, during those types of transition periods you'd be against gov't support?

Now, before you get all high and mighty, I live in Quebec. Have a look at the platform of the most popular up and coming party:

http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QS-Plateforme-2012-anglais-.pdf

I don't like retarded regulations. I don't like that pretty much half my salary goes up in taxes. But if you think that I can conceive for a second that welfare needs to be pulled wall to wall, just wow.

sorry i was off-topic, talking about minimum-wage laws, not welfare.

End of semester delirium, to be honest I probably went off-topic as well. Incidental, we're breaking the 10$ barrier over here soon, with a ~50% increase over the last 10 years:
http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/wages-pay-and-work/wages/history-of-the-minimum-wage/index.html

This I have reservations against.

[sega01]

Example for Australia:

$150,890 million - Individuals Income Tax (includes capital gains)

$121,907 million - Social Security and Welfare

$21,277 million - Defence

1. Remove income tax.
2. Remove social security and welfare.
3. Remove defence (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
4. Bump up the corporate tax by 1% or so.
5.
6. PROFIT!

I mostly agree with these statements. If you are unemployed and on welfare, the system is forcibly taking money from the employed (and actually making it harder to get jobs). If you are employed, you're making much less money paying taxes to pay for those without jobs. This also gives you less money to hire people, for odd jobs, mowing the lawn, or starting a company.

If there were no welfare, everyone with a job *could* make more. But really, I think you'd see both higher income and more jobs. But what about the jobless? Would they starve and die? Only if you let them. Nothing stopping you from personally feeding the homeless or helping out a jobless friend.

"Welfare" should be the common good of the people, acting individually. Not an government forced tax. And as Ronald Reagan said, "The best social program is a job."

[Schleicher]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

[myrkul]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that would actually be needed.

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

This is not 20%.. Most people in australia pay something like 35% in income taxes.

[myrkul]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

This is not 20%.. Most people in australia pay something like 35% in income taxes.

Adding in all the taxes, most Americans pay considerably more. One number I saw placed it close to 50%.

[fgervais]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

This is not 20%.. Most people in australia pay something like 35% in income taxes.

Adding in all the taxes, most Americans pay considerably more. One number I saw placed it close to 50%.

Keep in mind that those figures vary wildly depending on what you purchase. I'm up north so I'm not too familiar with you guys' tax and levy structure, but if you want to know you almost absolutely need to crunch the numbers yourself. Quite an interesting exercise too, IMHO, but then again I'm one of those weird people in accounting that likes their job.

I ran the numbers for a couple of years, and my high score is nearly 80%, but that was a weird year.

[Littleshop]

I think you are overestimating the number of people willing to spend 20% of their income for charity.

I think you are overestimating the amount of money that would actually be needed.

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

Also people will help in different ways, some that cost them little or no money at all.  Some people can give an unemployed friend/relative an unused ROOM and food from the kitchen.  In the real world, made at home food does not cost much especially incrementally (if you are cooking for several already).  What would cost the state $2000+ a month (unemployment+the overhead of giving it) might cost a friend/family member $200. 

[gabbergabe]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

[Lethn]

People keep saying that sort of thing but I never actually see any proper evidence for that sort of thing, forgetting of course the fact that one of the main reason the gap between the rich and poor is so high is because of inflation rather than any cuts to welfare, if you had a government system without debt or money printing then a welfare system could actually work but unfortunately I see a lot of evidence that while welfare is intended to help people it often causes a huge number of problems.

On the opposite end of the scale you also have charities and ironically I saw Ron Paul healthcare debate video where there was a news segment before which actually talked about how people like doctors without borders couldn't give people free healthcare all on their own because of state laws. This is another thing I hate about political debate where often an opposite side on a debate uses hypothetical threats and fear mongering to try and make their points rather than facts.

[myrkul]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase.

[fornit]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase.

yeah right, because banks give loans to lower class students, sick people dont get fucked by insurance lawyers, everybody wants to employ single moms, millions of jobs will just magically appear out of thin air, people without any support from society would never resort to crime as a means of survival and work is so much better at redistributing money than interest is...

i think this is a perfectly valid worldview - as long as you are not older than 16.

[myrkul]

Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.

agree sadly..

Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase.

yeah right, because banks give loans to lower class students, sick people dont get fucked by insurance lawyers, everybody wants to employ single moms, millions of jobs will just magically appear out of thin air, people without any support from society would never resort to crime as a means of survival and work is so much better at redistributing money than interest is...

i think this is a perfectly valid worldview - as long as you are not older than 16.

Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?

[fornit]

Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?

the "problem" is ever increasing productivity. just because people get paid less doesnt mean there is more work to do. this goes especially for jobs not requiring high-level education.
your whole idea of a society is based on people earning their livelihood through work, which is not realistic in the present and will become completely absurd in the foreseeable future.

[myrkul]

Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?

the "problem" is ever increasing productivity.

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

[fornit]

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

with limited worldwide resources and resources being a necessary part of production, worldwide productivity has, even without considering demand at all, an upper limit. therefore, it is, at some point, impossible, to let everybody work at maximum productivity. since it is inefficient to teach double the amount of workers and let them work half-time, work will eventually be done by few people working full time.
to avoid that you can either:
- let a society be deliberately inefficient, giving everyone work
- find a way to distribute wealth without the necessity for work

both of which your prefered society cannot accomplish. or, for that matter, any existing one i know of.
so, increasing productivity is not a problem by itself. the problem is that we dont have a good way to deal with its consequences.

[Schleicher]

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

In areas where demand is lower than the supply you need less people for production.
(milk, pants, toilet paper, pizza, etc)
Products will become cheaper so that the people who still have a job don't have to pay as much to buy the products.
The saved money will instead go to charity to support the unemployed people.