S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Tax cuts always help the poor and middle class because it creates a rising tide for everyone.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PetraG
Guest
There is not a single predictable outcome that flows from either tax cuts or tax hikes. Just because taxes are cut doesn’t automatically run any money through the fingers of the poor.Tax cuts always help the poor and middle class because it creates a rising tide for everyone.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Yes, there is. Lowering taxes grows the tax base as it gets capital flowing.There is not a single predictable outcome that flows from either tax cuts or tax hikes. Just because taxes are cut doesn’t automatically run any money through the fingers of the poor.
P
PetraG
Guest
That is not a necessary result. There is certainly not evidence that tax cuts always help the poor, let alone literally everyone.Yes, there is. Lowering taxes grows the tax base as it gets capital flowing.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Non-Catholic hospitals also do this.
But in today’s brave world, it’s soo fun and cool and like sooo righteous to attack anyone who makes evil profit.
But in today’s brave world, it’s soo fun and cool and like sooo righteous to attack anyone who makes evil profit.
S
Seeksadvice
Guest
I think that people forget that in order to do works of charity, you have to have a base of money/resources to work from. If you spend the principle, you no longer have the ability to do anything. Plus, if you can grow the principle, you can do more in the future.
Let’s say you have $1M and you have it invested at an average return of 10%/year. First year, that gives you $100,000.00 in returns. You can use all $100,000.00 of that for charity, but the principle doesn’t grow, and you lose the principle at the rate of inflation per year (for this example will just assume 2.5%). You can use $50,000.00 of that for charity and reinvest the other $50,000.00. That means at the end of the year you come out ahead of inflation by $25,000.00, which leaves room for growth for future endeavors.
If you spend all $1M at once, well, umm… then next year you can’t do anything.
Let’s say you have $1M and you have it invested at an average return of 10%/year. First year, that gives you $100,000.00 in returns. You can use all $100,000.00 of that for charity, but the principle doesn’t grow, and you lose the principle at the rate of inflation per year (for this example will just assume 2.5%). You can use $50,000.00 of that for charity and reinvest the other $50,000.00. That means at the end of the year you come out ahead of inflation by $25,000.00, which leaves room for growth for future endeavors.
If you spend all $1M at once, well, umm… then next year you can’t do anything.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Where is such wealth to end poverty? As can be seen from the statistics given by John Allen in this 2011 article, one single American univeristy, the University of Notre Dame, has far more wealth than the Vatican for its operating budget annually and in their endowement:Recently I posed this question on Facebook: Do you object against Catholicism and, if you do, then why?
Someone responded and is as follows: Yes I object, the Vatican has enough stored wealth to end poverty and hunger and they do nothing.
Should I reply, and how would I respond if so?
https://www.catholicregister.org/fe...eporter-debunks-myths-surrounding-the-vaticanThe annual operating budget of the Vatican City State is $270 million, he said, comparing that with the annual operating budget of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., which is $1.2 billion. The Catholic Church in the United States collects $200 million a week, almost enough to fund the Vatican for a year, he said.
As for the buildings, real estate and money in the patrimony of the Holy See, Allen said it amounts to an endowment of $1 billion. The endowment of Notre Dame is $30 billion and that of Harvard University is $100 billion.
The Holy See’s financial means are “not as endless as people imagine,” he said.
As for the Vatican art, it is “literally priceless,” Allen said, because it can never be sold but is kept for the benefit of humankind and requires millions of dollars to maintain and restore. Though the Vatican Museum collects entry fees, that money is used to defray the mammoth maintenance and restoration costs.
Say for the sake of debate that all the art in the Vatican was sold, if that were even possible, how much money would that make? How many millions? Or billions? I don’t think it would eradicate poverty, after all billions upon billions is given annually to the poor around the world from governments and charitable organisations and poverty still has not been eradicated. If all the art were sold, it would be a loss to the public because of the many artworks could possibly just end up languishing in private collections inaccessible to the public to view.
D
dochawk
Guest
hmm, this was still waiting for a response
If you can sell the gizmos that one person produces in an hour for $10, there is no way that you can pay that person a “living wage.” Either the job exists at $10/hour, or it doesn’t exist.
The problem with a minimum wage/mandated living wage/whatever you want to call it is that it doesn’t raise the wage for workers in jobs that pay less; it makes them illegal (or, far fewer than would be hired). Seattle’s $15 law, for example, currently costs minimum wage workers about $125/month each, as hours were cut by more than the wage went up.
A skilled adult should indeed make a living wage, and the market largely sees that happen. A sixteen year old who has never had a job doesn’t have the skills to produce output for such a wage. Requiring that amount to hire him means that he won’t get the $8/hr job where he gets the skills/reputation to get the $11. which gets him to . . . the analogy of cutting the bottom rungs off the ladder is quite apt.
The unions were most notably successful in monopsony hiring situations, such as a coal mine as the sole employer in a region, in monopolized or oligopolized industries, such as steel and automobiles, and situations where they used the government to outlaw competition (e.g., Massachusetts and plumbing, where it is illegal to do your own basic maintenance).
Unions gave the workers the power to end the taking of profit by underpaying workers (monopsony), or divide the monopoly profits (autoworkers).
They also have consistently lower returns. They’re not going to take over.
hawk, economist at large
Nothing can duo that short of taxing other work (directly or indirectly) can do that for a job that doesn’t produce that much output.Enough to ensure that workers make a living wage?
If you can sell the gizmos that one person produces in an hour for $10, there is no way that you can pay that person a “living wage.” Either the job exists at $10/hour, or it doesn’t exist.
The problem with a minimum wage/mandated living wage/whatever you want to call it is that it doesn’t raise the wage for workers in jobs that pay less; it makes them illegal (or, far fewer than would be hired). Seattle’s $15 law, for example, currently costs minimum wage workers about $125/month each, as hours were cut by more than the wage went up.
A skilled adult should indeed make a living wage, and the market largely sees that happen. A sixteen year old who has never had a job doesn’t have the skills to produce output for such a wage. Requiring that amount to hire him means that he won’t get the $8/hr job where he gets the skills/reputation to get the $11. which gets him to . . . the analogy of cutting the bottom rungs off the ladder is quite apt.
Nothing I have said here, or anywhere else in my life, supports such a reading.Hmm. So what was the whole union movement about? The working conditions were great and the workers were just getting greedy? Is that your reading?
The unions were most notably successful in monopsony hiring situations, such as a coal mine as the sole employer in a region, in monopolized or oligopolized industries, such as steel and automobiles, and situations where they used the government to outlaw competition (e.g., Massachusetts and plumbing, where it is illegal to do your own basic maintenance).
Unions gave the workers the power to end the taking of profit by underpaying workers (monopsony), or divide the monopoly profits (autoworkers).
They exist, and have some popularity.Except when there are investors who invest based on whether or not their wealth is being increased in a way that complies with their conscience. (“Conscience” mutual funds are becoming more popular, actually.)
They also have consistently lower returns. They’re not going to take over.
It could, but it would have to be universal, or near universal. I don’t see that happening, given the failure to do that with any other topic to date.A change of heart would not work?
Uh, no. They certainly have one of their effects in that direction (by increasing the value of the marginal product of labor), but if not above the peak of the gaffer curve, government revenues fall, which may stop other spending benefitting workers).Tax cuts always help the poor and middle class because it creates a rising tide for everyone.
hawk, economist at large
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
The prophets pretty much said put 'em to work at a fair wage or else feed them because they’re starving. Take your pick. Ideally, everyone can find something to do that contributes enough to justify their living, but I think subsidized labor is more dignified than outright handouts.hmm, this was still waiting for a response
PetraG:
Enough to ensure that workers make a living wage?
Nothing can duo that short of taxing other work (directly or indirectly) can do that for a job that doesn’t produce that much output.
If you can sell the gizmos that one person produces in an hour for $10, there is no way that you can pay that person a “living wage.” Either the job exists at $10/hour, or it doesn’t exist.
The problem with a minimum wage/mandated living wage/whatever you want to call it is that it doesn’t raise the wage for workers in jobs that pay less; it makes them illegal (or, far fewer than would be hired). Seattle’s $15 law, for example, currently costs minimum wage workers about $125/month each, as hours were cut by more than the wage went up.
A skilled adult should indeed make a living wage, and the market largely sees that happen. A sixteen year old who has never had a job doesn’t have the skills to produce output for such a wage. Requiring that amount to hire him means that he won’t get the $8/hr job where he gets the skills/reputation to get the $11. which gets him to . . . the analogy of cutting the bottom rungs off the ladder is quite apt.
Hmm. So what was the whole union movement about? The working conditions were great and the workers were just getting greedy? Is that your reading?
Nothing I have said here, or anywhere else in my life, supports such a reading.
The unions were most notably successful in monopsony hiring situations, such as a coal mine as the sole employer in a region, in monopolized or oligopolized industries, such as steel and automobiles, and situations where they used the government to outlaw competition (e.g., Massachusetts and plumbing, where it is illegal to do your own basic maintenance).
Unions gave the workers the power to end the taking of profit by underpaying workers (monopsony), or divide the monopoly profits (autoworkers).
PetraG:
Except when there are investors who invest based on whether or not their wealth is being increased in a way that complies with their conscience. (“Conscience” mutual funds are becoming more popular, actually.)
They exist, and have some popularity.
They also have consistently lower returns. They’re not going to take over.
PetraG:
A change of heart would not work?
It could, but it would have to be universal, or near universal. I don’t see that happening, given the failure to do that with any other topic to date.
SuperLuigi:
Tax cuts always help the poor and middle class because it creates a rising tide for everyone.
Uh, no. They certainly have one of their effects in that direction (by increasing the value of the marginal product of labor), but if not above the peak of the gaffer curve, government revenues fall, which may stop other spending benefitting workers).
hawk, economist at large
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
That’s a legitimate approach. In fact, that is what is behind, for example, the Earned Income Credit.The prophets pretty much said put 'em to work at a fair wage or else feed them because they’re starving. Take your pick. Ideally, everyone can find something to do that contributes enough to justify their living, but I think subsidized labor is more dignified than outright handouts.
The devil in the details is that if you subsidize to the level of a skilled worker, there is no incentive for the unskilled to become skilled, etc.
Another is the abrupt cutoff under the current US system of food stamps and medicaid–earn $1 over the magic number, and you suddenly lose several thousands in benefits.
It is not unfair to pay a teenager the economic value of his labor instead of a “living wage”. It is unjust that two forty year olds with two children don’t, between work and subsidies, have a living income.
Most od the time, it is either lack of skill or ability that would leave the middle-aged couple in this situation. Almost all will advance from the teenage fast-food job with the incentive of the higher paying job. Social justice is in taking care of those who _can_not, or by luck of the draw do not, advance. It is not in giving a socially just wage for a middle aged family to every entry level worker, which will have the result of a great many more “needing” subsidies.
hawk
P
PetraG
Guest
There is often incentive in terms of skilled labor being more gratifying–physicians used to work for peanuts, really, and yet many went into the occupation because of the gratification and the status–but the time and expense it takes to gain the skill has to pencil out, too.The devil in the details is that if you subsidize to the level of a skilled worker, there is no incentive for the unskilled to become skilled, etc.
That is the other thing, too: status. We need to start giving the honor due to people who do an honest day’s work. Who is going to want to do hard manual labor for barely more money than they could get on the dole when they are constantly denigrated for “flipping burgers”? People feel entitled to food that is cheap and fast, then they add insult to injury by looking down on the worker whose low wages make the food so cheap!!
As for the teenager, some if not many are trying to put something by for the rising cost of entering the skilled workforce. Some are saving money to leave their parents’ house because they have no college prospects. I don’t see age as an excuse to underpay them. I can see a lower wage for someone who is getting more teaching than they are working, but that doesn’t last six or nine months.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.