Thread: How the minimum wage works

Originally Posted by gunnut

Social Secutiry is a slightly different type of government program than the others. The original intent is to have the presently working support those in retirement, in exchange for promises that in the future, someone else will pay for their retirement. The retirement funds for individuals were capped to ensure some surplus as "rainy day" fund.

Of course like any good politician would, that surplus was "borrowed" to pay for current deficit in the general budget.

.

My point exactly. Seemed disengenious to use it to jsutify a round of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans

Originally Posted by ba1025

My point exactly. Seemed disengenious to use it to jsutify a round of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans

What? I fail to see your point.

Tax cuts go to high income earners first because they pay more to begin with.

I say we make them pay their fair share by having a single tax rate for all.

Originally Posted by gunnut

What? I fail to see your point.

Tax cuts go to high income earners first because they pay more to begin with.

I say we make them pay their fair share by having a single tax rate for all.

The taxcut was justified by the surplus. The source was the social security surplus. Why are those who didnt pay what is not a traditional tax entitled to the surplus that tax created?

Minimum wage is called that for a reason. Its purpose is for entry-level, UNskilled workers. This is a capitalist economy. If you want to earn better wages, get some type of skill/education. That is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. If you have a specialized skill, but there are no jobs where you now live, you can either whine about it and do nothing (and hope the goverment helps you) or you move to where the jobs are located. Or you learn a new useful skill that is in demand in your local area if you do not wish to relocate. As said in previous posts, it depends on where you live as to how far your salary takes you.
We as Americans have gotten lazy and expect too much. We've been told for a generation (or more) to go out and get a college degree and that guarantees a high paying job with superb benefits. I have met may people with useless degrees, working at jobs that have nothing to do with four years of higher (and expensive) education. Now we have a lot of educated people with no skills in the trades. The trade jobs are being taken up by immigrants who are skilled, but will work for less pay. That's what they are used to.
A lot of jobs are outsourced overseas. That makes perfect business sense when the stockholders are demanding profit. Why pay an American fifteen or twenty dollars an hour (plus benefits) when you can get a person in a foreign country for five dollars an hour and no benefits to do the same job? Duh! While I'm a "Buy American" kind of guy, mere patriotism won't save an American company from bankruptcy if it can't turn a profit. We've essentially priced ourselves out of the job market. As business becomes more global, American companies must do what they can to compete and make profits, or else they'll be bought out by a foreign company, or go bankrupt.
Our up and coming generations of young Americans need to be educated/trained in not only high technology type jobs that are not overseas yet, but the trades (electricians, plumbers, hvac, etc.). Also, the current free spending that we're all guilty of (the latest computers, LCDTVs, cell phones, cars, etc.) needs to be curbed. Too many people are not saving their money.
Too many people do not have health plans, insurance, etc., not because the premiums are too costly, but because they spend their money on too much crap, ie, too many luxuries and not enough essentials. The majority of the uninsured in America are uninsured by choice. The money they could use for health care plans and /or insurance is being spent on eating out, expensive cars, etc.

Just remember though, all the above is merely my opnion!

Originally Posted by ba1025

The taxcut was justified by the surplus. The source was the social security surplus. Why are those who didnt pay what is not a traditional tax entitled to the surplus that tax created?

That syllogism just doesn't seem right. The surplus wasn't distributed; it was "borrowed".

Sure, you can cherry pick among top tax payers and find some who barely paid any tax, but you cannot reason that that makes the tax cut unfair insofar as it affects the wealthy.

Originally Posted by McFire

Too many people do not have health plans, insurance, etc., not because the premiums are too costly, but because they spend their money on too much crap, ie, too many luxuries and not enough essentials. The majority of the uninsured in America are uninsured by choice. The money they could use for health care plans and /or insurance is being spent on eating out, expensive cars, etc.

Granted it's your opinion. But how many responsible people do you know who are eating and living it up on money that could go to paying insurance premiums? Most of the ones I know are young folks unmarried and without children. There's no tomorrow when you're sewing wild oats. The rest, if they can afford any medical coverage are struggling to keep up with the premiums or increasing deductables and co-pays, and narrowing coverage to keep premiums the same. Hell, I even quit smoking to get a lower rate.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Granted it's your opinion. But how many responsible people do you know who are eating and living it up on money that could go to paying insurance premiums? Most of the ones I know are young folks unmarried and without children. There's no tomorrow when you're sewing wild oats. The rest, if they can afford any medical coverage are struggling to keep up with the premiums or increasing deductables and co-pays, and narrowing coverage to keep premiums the same. Hell, I even quit smoking to get a lower rate.

I retired from the USAF a few months ago and began a new career as an insurance agent and it's opened my eyes to how people think, or not think about their priorities with their money, ie, wants versus needs. The Democrats like to talk about the forty-seven million uninsured people in the USA. About ten million of that number have household incomes of $70,000 or higher (What's their excuse?). When you take out the younger folks "sowing their oats", you're down to about fifteen million people and about half of that number already qualify for government programs that either provide them with or aid them in getting healthcare. They just don't apply for it or know about it. It's also amazing meeting people who have insurance, but have no clue how it works or what types of insurance they have.
I often see people who are "poor" or lower income, but they have the latest model cars (mine is ten years old), the latest cell phones, lcd or plasma tvs, bling jewelry, etc. When asked about insurance however, it's just "too expensive". There are all kinds of affordable policies out there, life and health wise. For example, you can get health coverage with a high deductible, use the money you save by getting the high deductible and get an affordable health supplement that pays you direct. The supplement would pay for the high deductible and co-pays on the major medical. Just as preventive maintenance on your car prolongs its life and helps prevent major repairs before they happen, people can take care of themselves too by healthy living and not going to the emergency room for colds, flu, etc., which in turn raises health care costs and clogs emergency rooms with non-emergencies.

Originally Posted by ba1025

My point exactly. Seemed disengenious to use it to jsutify a round of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans

So... Is it better to let the people who earned the money (or don't you think "the rich" earned it?) keep more of their money, or should it go to the government, which was proven over and over, that it cannot be trusted to do the right thing with the money?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

That syllogism just doesn't seem right. The surplus wasn't distributed; it was "borrowed".

Sure, you can cherry pick among top tax payers and find some who barely paid any tax, but you cannot reason that that makes the tax cut unfair insofar as it affects the wealthy.

well when the bill comes do for that loan who willl pay? My kids? seems to me we would of been better of maintaining the federal debt we had than adding trillions to it. I do think when a tax is collected for a specific purpose that the excess collections should be "loaned" to those who paid the tax not those who paid other taxes. I agree to disagree on the matter though.

As to low skilled Americans. I think it's in the countries interest those that can be trained to be higher skilled more valuable labor should have a means to get that training. Rugged individualism is great but the bottomline is it's better for me if a small portion of my taxes goes to help someone get skills that make them more valuable because it means we as a nation can compete better in a global economy. Skilled people pay taxes poor people go to emergency troom for healthcare and cost me money. I am glad to see anyone who wants it get a hand up not a hand out. I didnt need help it. So what, it's still better for me if someone is a programmer than it is if they are a laborer. For me supporting programs like that is about supporting my wallet in the long run not about being self righteous

[QUOTE=2DREZQ;480837]So... Is it better to let the people who earned the money (or don't you think "the rich" earned it?) QUOTE]
Honestly no I think some who were left a fortune in trust funds didnt earn a nickle. I dont want to take the $ away I just dont think they earned it. They deserve it but it is an accident of birth not special skills that "made" their fortune.

I stand to inherit about 400k-500k it's because my Father grew up in the depression and was frugal. He was given a hand up by the govt after WW2 throguh the GI BILL. he went to MIT and was succussful. I tell him to spend i but he wont. The truth is if he does leave me a legacy I didnt earn it he did. I cetainely deserved it as an heir but I woulkd never say i earned it

Originally Posted by McFire

I retired from the USAF a few months ago and began a new career as an insurance agent and it's opened my eyes to how people think, or not think about their priorities with their money, ie, wants versus needs. The Democrats like to talk about the forty-seven million uninsured people in the USA. About ten million of that number have household incomes of $70,000 or higher (What's their excuse?). When you take out the younger folks "sowing their oats", you're down to about fifteen million people and about half of that number already qualify for government programs that either provide them with or aid them in getting healthcare. They just don't apply for it or know about it. It's also amazing meeting people who have insurance, but have no clue how it works or what types of insurance they have.
I often see people who are "poor" or lower income, but they have the latest model cars (mine is ten years old), the latest cell phones, lcd or plasma tvs, bling jewelry, etc. When asked about insurance however, it's just "too expensive". There are all kinds of affordable policies out there, life and health wise. For example, you can get health coverage with a high deductible, use the money you save by getting the high deductible and get an affordable health supplement that pays you direct. The supplement would pay for the high deductible and co-pays on the major medical. Just as preventive maintenance on your car prolongs its life and helps prevent major repairs before they happen, people can take care of themselves too by healthy living and not going to the emergency room for colds, flu, etc., which in turn raises health care costs and clogs emergency rooms with non-emergencies.

Sorry this is what you percieve and not supported by any real data. It's "democrats" statements close to the ol..wlefare queeens in cadilacs statistics drawn from the nether..... I see poor people. They look freaking poor to me and they drive crap cars or take the bus. Are you sure you arent seeing "middle class"

As long as you are healthy i am sure you can get good single coverage for 5 or 6k now add kids or an illness and oooo boy
Anyway wtf is wrong with our healthcare system that it costs three times what the god damned french one does and lags in every metric the WHO measures other than $ spent per capita?????

Originally Posted by ba1025

well when the bill comes do for that loan who willl pay? My kids? seems to me we would of been better of maintaining the federal debt we had than adding trillions to it. I do think when a tax is collected for a specific purpose that the excess collections should be "loaned" to those who paid the tax not those who paid other taxes. I agree to disagree on the matter though.

They'll pay like you're paying now for the previous generation. That's the deal, but I hasten to add that their share is going to be far greater than ours if we don't fix Medicare and Social Security soon.

[QUOTE=ba1025;480851]

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

So... Is it better to let the people who earned the money (or don't you think "the rich" earned it?) QUOTE]
Honestly no I think some who were left a fortune in trust funds didnt earn a nickle. I dont want to take the $ away I just dont think they earned it. They deserve it but it is an accident of birth not special skills that "made" their fortune.

I stand to inherit about 400k-500k it's because my Father grew up in the depression and was frugal. He was given a hand up by the govt after WW2 throguh the GI BILL. he went to MIT and was succussful. I tell him to spend i but he wont. The truth is if he does leave me a legacy I didnt earn it he did. I cetainely deserved it as an heir but I woulkd never say i earned it

Very well, my point would have been better served by the word :deserve" rather than "earned"

You do see what I'm saying about the government inability to bang for the buck, don't you? You seem to be argueing that the government shouldn't let the wealthy keep more of their own money, yet you agree that the government has demonstrated that they are MORE likely to waste the money than the private citizen.

FWIW, I agree on not repealing the death tax. The land should return to the crown every 3rd generation.

Originally Posted by ba1025

I don't understand why construction pay didn't rise in relation to the huge demand Builders were getting during the boom. Profits were up just look at the financials of big firms 2001-2007.

I haven't been doing this as long as JAD. In fact I got in the construction business in 2002 and didn't get my GC until 2006.

Before that, I first worked as a shop foreman for a screen room/Hurricane shutter company. Then got my Occupational license and started my own screen/shutter business, then did small remodel jobs on the side until I became a GC. Actually (full disclosure) I am a Building Contractor. Fl has Residential, Building and General contractors. GCs can build Factories,roads and bridges. I'm limited to Res/comm/light Industry. I "specialize" in commercial, the residential market has pretty much dried up.

Anyway. Where did all the money go during the building craze? In my county, the local government and the utilities increased existing fees and came up with a lot of new ones to fund various projects.

In 2003 a res building permit cost $25 SqFt and there were $800 worth of impact fees. Now its $65 SqFt for heated space and $45 SqFt for unheated.
Impact fees have climbed to $6,000. In addition Tap fees (water,sewer, electric) have tripled.

Material cost (especially metal)went through the roof for a while and after the last round of Hurricanes came through building code have become more stringent.

For the small and specialty guys, Work mans Comp laws changed which caused their prices to go up.

Me, I spent all those "profits" on all the various books that I am required to have, and needed to study. They are not cheap. And classes on the subjects I was a little shaky on.

Lots of money was changing hands but the profit margins really didn't change much.

However, in 2001 a frame carpenter with little experience could expect to start at around $8 Hr. Now the going rate is around $12. So the workers have seen an increase in pay.

Maybe it was the illegal immigrants so many employed and continue too and never paid a cent of taxes on.

I get up for work early. I see the vans of people who can't speak a lick of English and are either of Mexican or south American heritage. i don't really blame them for wanting to get ahead but man I think those hiring them should be sent back to Mexico with them

Every time I hear stuff like this it makes my blood boil. You see a van of hispanics and assume that they are illegal. This same attitude slows down my work at least once a week. Our sheriff has decided to get "Tough on illegal immigration". Billboards all over saying that if you see illegals working call it in. I have 2 hispanics working for me full time. So the deputies roll up to the job site, lights and sirens going and detain my guys (and a lot of others on a big job) until I can go to the office and grab their employee folder and show that I have verified their citizenship (or work status). People will also call the state Workmans Comp board and complain. Not as big of a hassle, since they have can access all the names of my employees on their laptops. But its still stops work for a while.

There is no doubt that illegals have been hired. And yes sometimes knowingly, but until the Government gets their act together and provides an accurate means to check citizenship things won't change.

Studies in California claim that most illegals are hired by homeowners vice businesses.

But thats a different subject, that we don;t need to get sidetracked on.