What wage is just?

[Regular_Atheist]

I keep saying that it is the employees responsibility to have the skills, knowledge, or talent required by employers. You are not getting a raise simply because you exist!

Of course not, but that’s why industrial action has played such an important role in enforcing the demands of employees. The interests of employers and employees are directly opposed, and a lot of employers would probably pay their workers in dirt if they could get away with it. A lot of employees in sections of the economy previously considered “middle class” are realizing this.

Ok, but society does not benefit from having to pay taxes to support you so you can enjoy your children and sleep in.

Who even benefits from most work done nowadays? Lots of work roles would be entirely superfluous without the need to make money, money that the workers themselves certainly don’t see. Abolish profit and money and perhaps we could have an economy geared around the important things in life - loving our children and sleeping in certainly among them.

What is with this entitlement attitude on this forum.

Why can’t I demand the world? Certainly I don’t want to spend my life making other people rich. We have the means for everybody to enjoy life without money or work being a problem, I don’t see why that shouldn’t be realized.

You should not even be having kids if your still in college.

The poor should not breed and are not entitled to am education, he says.

 

[Dracarys]

Abolish profit and money and perhaps we could have an economy geared around the important things in life - loving our children and sleeping in certainly among them.

Uh…without money you wouldn’t really have an “economy”. Yes I know economics is about scarcity, but if you didn’t have to pay money for things scarcity would escalate because everyone would hold free stuff for themselves. A perfect utopian Gaia does not exist.

Why can’t I demand the world? Certainly I don’t want to spend my life making other people rich. We have the means for everybody to enjoy life without money or work being a problem, I don’t see why that shouldn’t be realized.

Demand all you want, but unless you have the cash to buy it you don’t get it. If you steal it you’ll go to prison.

The poor should not breed and are not entitled to an education

Wow did I really say that? Hmmm…where? Of coarse anyone is entitled to kids, but that does not mean everyone should.

I know your angle. You are one of these leftist who want to do away with money and just be given everything. Your ideas are on the lunatic fringe and it will never happen. But you already know that.

 

[Dracarys]

And for every person like that, there’s an employer who is more than willing to have them work a full week and pay them enough to live on for a day … how exactly is that supposed to be equitable?

What am I missing here? Is anyone being forced by their employer to work there? Are any of you shackled to your machine? If so I will call 911 on your behalf since slavery was outlawed in the 1800s.

 

[Convert3]

Lots of work roles would be entirely superfluous without the need to make money, money that the workers themselves certainly don’t see. Abolish profit and money and perhaps we could have an economy geared around the important things in life - loving our children and sleeping in certainly among them.

Who would provide the food, shelter, healthcare and education we need? Who would keep law and order? Take away profit and money and you destroy our economic system and any incentive workers may have to grow food, build shelter, or educate themselves goes away.

 

[Dracarys]

I entered this thread hoping to learn why so many people put the responsibility on employers to pay a “living wage”. First people’s definition of a living wage varies. Some don’t consider themselves truly living without having a full cable TV selection including all sports channels. Some demand a big F150 or 250 on their driveway. Some want to afford designer Gucci or Coach brands before they are living. You all get what I mean.

Secondly I really want to know why it’s always the employer’s responsibility. As a retired CPA I assure you that some of my clients skipped paying themselves so they could meet payroll. Some business models are dependent on cheap labor or there is no sense in doing it. These companies typically hire low skill teenagers who are only worth minimum wage. The owners of these companies often work extremely long hours and they have substantial capital at risk. These owners have an expectancy that at the end of the tunnel they may become wealthy. Is that wrong?

If any emploee does not like his salary isn’t he free to look elsewhere? Maybe he even needs to move out of state to gain the wage he wants. Is that terrible? Unemployment is at an all time low.

 

[Dracarys]

Who would provide the food, shelter, healthcare and education we need? Who would keep law and order? Take away profit and money and you destroy our economic system and any incentive workers may have to grow food, build shelter, or educate themselves goes away.

All great points, but this person is just baiting us. He is a far leftist anarchist who wants community ownership of property and no currency. He knows full well this won’t work and will never happen.

 

[_Ruby]

Except the number of people paying into the system and benefiting from that system still outnumber the number of people who dont pay in and just take. The whole point of a welfare system is to have safeguards in place to support their populations be healthier, better educated and higher earners as a result.

I live in ‘welfare’ country (not as generous as the Nordic countries) and only pay a 20% tax rate currently. Even if I never receive another payrise again for the next 40 years of my working life, i’ll have paid in £400 thousand in taxes. If the state were to have paid for my university education, the whole 9k it cost me in tuition fee loans would more than be covered. I get a university education, my employer benefits from my educational skills and pays me accordingly, which in turn creates a better economy and more money for the government in taxes. In addition to this, they also benefit from the fact my children are born to better educated parents and have a better start in life due to our increased household income.

Of course there are going to be people who dont pay into the system as much as others - the disabled, the chronically ill, the lazy etc. Just like there are people in the system who will pay more than they take - the high earners on higher tax brackets, those who opt to pay for schooling privately, who pay for private healthcare, who never need to go to the doctor etc.

People pay into the system knowing that their earning potential may probably mean they pay more into the system than they take, but its part of collective risk. Their circumstances could change overnight and they know they would still be covered.

I also get to sleep at night knowing that I dont have to shop around to find an employer who wont treat me like garbage. As a baseline standard I get:

A minimum wage
28 days guaranteed paid holiday days per year
As much sick leave as I need (first 3 days at full pay from my employer and statutory sick pay from the gov after that per instance of sickness)
A year’s maternity leave (6 weeks at 90% pay from my employer and the rest as statutory maternity allowance from the gov)
The option to split that paid maternity leave with my husband if I want
My job must be held open to me on return from my maternity leave
Full entitlement to any holiday days I accrue during that maternity leave on my return
Paid time off for all maternity related appointments

I pay into a system that recognises that a workforce that isn’t worrying about getting fired or losing money because they are ill is a more productive and healthier one. That companies who have a workforce with a good work/life balance are more loyal and productive, increasing their efficiency. That paying a minimum living wage means that people can take home a reasonable wage and invest that money elsewhere.

 

[Dracarys]

minimum wage
28 days guaranteed paid holiday days per year
As much sick leave as I need (first 3 days at full pay from my employer and statutory sick pay from the gov after that per instance of sickness)
A year’s maternity leave (6 weeks at 90% pay from my employer and the rest as statutory maternity allowance from the gov)
The option to split that paid maternity leave with my husband if I want

Wow, a real Utopia huh? You didn’t say which country but I guarantee there are taxes being paid on your behalf that you either aren’t mentioning are don’t know about. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said " the problem with socialism us that you eventually run out of other people’s money. ". I guarantee you have benefactors, but you just don’t care about them.

Also it’s alarming to me how little you know about how companies run. While you are cuddling with your new baby who does your job? Temporary employees require money spent on training, they make more errors, and they won’t work as efficiently as a regular employee. I guarantee you are missed when the government mandates you get such a ridiculously long free ride.

Again, SOMEONE other than you is paying for this. There is no such thing as a free lunch. You have gotten to the point that you are so spoiled you don’t even recognize when you are getting free stuff and others expense.

I really do find your litney of benefits outrageous. Why are employers always the one stuck with the burden? They give you wages, and now the government requires them to babysit you as well. If that happened to me as owner I would fire all of you and move to Texas.

 

[_Ruby]

Well I figured the use of £ signs next to the monetary values may have given the location away, as a handy hint, its one that Maggie Thatcher was in charge of for a while. Its far, far from a utopia, it just doesn’t behave as if 99% of its citizens should be wrung out to line the pockets of the 1%.

I am well aware of what my taxes are going towards, the system is not overly complex.
My monthly income tax pays for services like the NHS, schools and the welfare system (job seekers allowance, disability benefits etc,)
My monthly national insurance tax covers things like maternity pay and state pensions
My yearly council tax pays for our bin collections, police, schools etc.

Whilst im at home raising a newborn, the national insurance my husband and I have paid over the last 10-15 years covers my maternity pay. That is not a ‘free ride’, thats me and my husband having contributed 40k between us in national insurance contributions since we began working, like I said, we have another 30-40 years of adding to that pot alongside increased wage earnings and promotions. We pay into the system every month so that we can have these options when the time comes. The current UK unemployment rate is 4%, so the vast, vast majority are paying into the system just the same.

Because my job security is guaranteed, I can give my employer 7+ months notice of my maternity leave so they can plan accordingly. In the case for both myself and my husband, members of our junior teams are able to use the opportunity to be trained to take the reigns and add to their skill set and thus have opportunities for promotions in the future.

My company is currently doing a review of its maternity policy precisely because they have a vested interest to retain their skilled employees and support their health and wellbeing. Part of keeping your employees wanting to work for you is by increasing perks like enhanced maternity/shared parental leave & pay.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Okay, I’ll bite and respond without resorting to questioning that which is apparently unquestionable.

What am I missing here? Is anyone being forced by their employer to work there? Are any of you shackled to your machine? If so I will call 911 on your behalf since slavery was outlawed in the 1800s.

Not working isn’t an option for most people, if they want to be able to afford rent and food and other conveniences in life. Also, lots of people are trapped in positions of poor employment and have little prospect of moving on.

I entered this thread hoping to learn why so many people put the responsibility on employers to pay a “living wage”.

Would you deny that there is a point where a wage can be so low that someone can not easily afford basic amenities? Obviously “living wage” is not a clearly defined concept - most people share some common idea of what is an “acceptable” level of poverty for people to live in (in the western world, at least), but if you’re going to hold the views that you do and then refuse to accept the idea of a “living wage”, that sounds to me like you’re justifying the most base levels of poverty. Do you think there is a level of poverty that is so unjustifiable that society should intervene to prevent it?

Secondly I really want to know why it’s always the employer’s responsibility.

The employer is the person that provides the wage. The employee is literally dependant on them to get a wage they can survive on. If they can’t get it from their employer, who else can they depend on? The state maybe, but you’re opposed to that too.

These owners have an expectancy that at the end of the tunnel they may become wealthy. Is that wrong?

Would you say it’s okay to get rich knowingly off of the poverty of others?

What do you do for a living Dracarys?

A lot of your prejudices against “welfare” seem pretty ignorant. You seem to hold things to be entitlements that have a clear capitalist social benefit. Do you think the state enforces maternity leave simply out of the kindness of its heart? They need people to have children - so do you, in fact, as an employer, or else there won’t be enough workers in the next generation. Women are already choosing to forego children in favour of furthering their careers in droves. Employers also need the unemployed to depress wages, and maintain a competitive job market. It’s simple supply and demand - too many workers and the price of wages will skyrocket, as labour becomes sparse. Welfare benefits also help to subsidise the wages of some of the poorest workers, hence why many employees of corporations like Walmart are on benefits. Many capitalists don’t oppose welfare in the hardline way that you do because they recognise it as useful. It’s a very vulgar and prejudiced capitalism that can’t see beyond the moral platitudes of “taxation as theft.”

 

[Dracarys]

it just doesn’t behave as if 99% of its citizens should be wrung out to line the pockets of the 1%.

I don’t know any company that wrings people out except for maybe the government taxing the incentive out of business owners. Here in the US we have unlimited opportunities to advance within a company to incredibly high salaries or, my favorite, being an entrepreneur and starting your own company.

I am well aware of what my taxes are going towards, the system is not overly complex.
My monthly income tax pays for services like the NHS, schools and the welfare system (job seekers allowance, disability benefits etc,)
My monthly national insurance tax covers things like maternity pay and state pensions
My yearly council tax pays for our bin collections, police, schools etc.

I did some reading and I found that you failed to mention the triple taxes you in the UK are actually paying. First, that “insurance” you love so much is really a 12% income tax. From what I can tell you cannot opt out of it. Secondly you have a complex and onerous income tax where the marginal rate structure rises from 40% to 60%, then falls back to 40% before rising again to 50%. Third you have a very high VAT of 20%. You neglected to mention all that.

Just as I suspected when you made that list of goodies you get someone is indeed paying for it. Actually the UK tax structure looks far worse than my friend from Denmark above. As I said no one gets a free lunch. I also recall reading that the UK is losing many of its wealthy population to Australia where I assume taxes are more friendly.

 

[Socrates92]

Secondly you have a complex and onerous income tax where the marginal rate structure rises from 40% to 60%, then falls back to 40% before rising again to 50%.

What? That’s just bizarre! How? Why?

 

[Dracarys]

Not working isn’t an option for most people, if they want to be able to afford rent and food and other conveniences in life. Also, lots of people are trapped in positions of poor employment and have little prospect of moving on.

UH…yeah not working should not be an option. Again no one is going to pay you simply because you exist. St. Paul continued to work as a tentmaker and he said For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3-10.

The employer is the person that provides the wage. The employee is literally dependant on them to get a wage they can survive on. If they can’t get it from their employer, who else can they depend on? The state maybe, but you’re opposed to that too.

The employee is NOT dependent on his employer since he can quit, seek and obtain new employment, or start his own business.

Would you say it’s okay to get rich knowingly off of the poverty of others?

It would be wrong if they were slaves, but we had a war ending that a long time ago.

They need people to have children - so do you, in fact, as an employer, or else there won’t be enough workers in the next generation.

LOL people have had children since the beginning of time and that will never change. That is a ridiculous argument.

Many capitalists don’t oppose welfare in the hardline way that you do because they recognise it as useful. It’s a very vulgar and prejudiced capitalism that can’t see beyond the moral platitudes of “taxation as theft.”

When did I say I oppose welfare? The elderly and disabled must have it. I admit that when I am shopping at the grocery store and I frequently see someone pull food stamps out of a Gucci purse I get upset. Fraud is rampant in welfare.

This thread is about a so called “fair wage”. My point has always been that what is “fair” varies among people. Secondly if any employer is for some reason not paying a high enough wage the market will correct him because all his good workers will find a job elsewhere.

You really need to read some economics books other than by Karl Marx. Employees need to have marketable knowledge, skills, or talent and they will get hired. Better yet start their own company.

What do you do for a living Dracarys?

I am a retired CPA. Now I do some other things, but I make most of my money as a real estate investor/landlord.

 

[Dracarys]

What? That’s just bizarre! How? Why?

I don’t know why. Ask the good citizens of the UK why they tolerate it. We here in the US had a little war with Great Britain about its tendency to over tax, and tax without representation.

 

[leonhardprintz]

It’s immoral for a government to set a wage an force a company to pay it.

It is not immoral at all. God has granted the rulers the right to keep the peace, and to set the order of a society. Regulating the economy falls under that.

But while its not morally wrong, its definitely unwise. That’s why I haven’t proposed any minimum wage law in this thread. And in fact Denmark doesn’t have any minimum wage laws.

I am amazed that you socialist don’t get this.

I am not a socialist. I am a capitalist.

You used tax money from one of your wealthy Danes.

That’s not how taxation works. I think your posts are degenerating into soundbytes and emotionalism. Taxes are paid by all in Denmark. In fact the lower and middle class pay more than half of them.

Leonhard:

Dracarys:

I noticed your tendancy to see everyone as homongenous and helpless.

You’re talking to a strawman liberal who only exists in your own h

Your memory is short.

First of all, I think you need to learn to use the quote function, you accidentally tend to snip off the end of quotes a lot.

Secondly, my memory is not short. In fact I pointed out to you that I had specifically limited myself to a clear and well defined example of people in a particular situation. I had not talked in general terms about the American public.

First it may be doable, but you people will never actually do it. It would steal money away from your precious entitlements.

This post is entirely your opinion. There are no facts here at all to discuss objectively. It was the opinion of people in the US before WWI, that the US would never have an army consistent of more than a hundred thousand soldiers. And then a few decades later it was more than thirty times greater.

All in response to historical contingencies.

You must realize that 3.1% of not much is still not enough. Instead living in your welfare nanny state you should have had an actual capitalist system that doesn’t hammer your rich people. The high individual tax rate in Denmark is 55%! In the state of California they also have money grabbing tax and spenders so people are moving to the states of Texas and Arizona where the taxes are lower.

This is a nonsense answer. Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world. 3.1% of our gross national product is a lot when you consider the fact that we’re a small country. At any rate we’re obligated to do 2% according to the NATO deal.

You’re preaching to the choir if all you wanna point out is that we should pay more.

 

[leonhardprintz]

It’s 55% rate there.

Its actually 52% for all income above 90k per year. Income below that rate is taxed at 36%. Meaning the effective tax rate on your personal income will be somewhere between 36% and 52%

I entered this thread hoping to learn why so many people put the responsibility on employers to pay a “living wage”. First people’s definition of a living wage varies. Some don’t consider themselves truly living without having a full cable TV selection including all sports channels. Some demand a big F150 or 250 on their driveway. Some want to afford designer Gucci or Coach brands before they are living. You all get what I mean.

No people have here have talked about “Full cable TV Selection including all sports channels”, or “Big F150 or 250 on their drive way” or “Gucci or Coach brands”.

And no I don’t get what you mean. What has been discussed has been a meagre pay of around 15-18$ per months in this thread, enough to afford a place to live, food and clothes to wear, as well as phone and internet access.

Luxury items have emphatically not been discussed.

 

[_Ruby]

I don’t know any company that wrings people out except for maybe the government taxing the incentive out of business owners. Here in the US we have unlimited opportunities to advance within a company to incredibly high salaries or, my favorite, being an entrepreneur and starting your own company.

_Ruby:

I am well aware of what my taxes are going towards, the system is not overly complex.
My monthly income tax pays for services like the NHS, schools and the welfare system (job seekers allowance, disability benefits etc,)
My monthly national insurance tax covers things like maternity pay and state pensions
My yearly council tax pays for our bin collections, police, schools etc.

I did some reading and I found that you failed to mention the triple taxes you in the UK are actually paying. First, that “insurance” you love so much is really a 12% income tax. From what I can tell you cannot opt out of it. Secondly you have a complex and onerous income tax where the marginal rate structure rises from 40% to 60%, then falls back to 40% before rising again to 50%. Third you have a very high VAT of 20%. You neglected to mention all that.

Just as I suspected when you made that list of goodies you get someone is indeed paying for it. Actually the UK tax structure looks far worse than my friend from Denmark above. As I said no one gets a free lunch. I also recall reading that the UK is losing many of its wealthy population to Australia where I assume taxes are more friendly.

That is honestly the most bizarre interpretation of UK tax law I have ever seen!

Its a simple system, both the ‘National Insurance tax’ and the ‘Income Tax’ are taken straight from your salary. Your use of the word ‘insurance’ in this respect isn’t like american insurance - it is a non optional tax. We are talking about what tax contributions pay for what services. As I told you, the ‘national insurance’ payment goes towards things like maternity and pensions etc whilst ‘income tax’ goes towards the NHS, disability support, the ‘welfare state’.

Our income tax is banded in a very clear way:

The first 12K of your earnings are tax free.
Between 12k and 46k is taxed at 20%
Then the portion between 46k - 150k is 40%
With anything over 150k+ at 45%

The tax is structured so if you earn 80K in a year, you pay nothing on the first 12k, 20% on anything between 12k - 46k and 40% on the remaining 34K.

Our national insurance tax is also simply banded and based on your earnings.

The first £166 per week is not taxed
£166- £962 is taxed at 12%
Any additional earnings over £962 a week are taxed at an additional 2%

As an example:

I earn roughly between 40k - 45K a year.
From the £3333 I earned this month the following deductions were made:
Income tax - £452
National Insurance - £315
Student Loan - £162
Employer pension - £84

Perhaps you’d clear up a lot of your confusion by reading straight from the source:

Income Tax rates and Personal Allowances

Personal Allowance, Income Tax rates, bands and thresholds.

www.gov.uk

You’re asking where this ‘free lunch’ comes from, im telling you exactly how it is paid for.

 

[ewohdrol]

While I am not from the UK I lived there for a number of years.

Above is correct. Their system is very similar to the Australian system in terms of tax and welfare opportunities. Both much more equalitarian nations in my experience.

 

[Peeps]

Dracarys, you surely know that people with small children seldom-never sleep in, unless the little ones are staying overnight with grandma and grandpa!

As for not having kids in college–why not? Your fertility is often at its best, especially a woman’s fertility. And your bodies are young and strong, and chances are good that you are fairly healthy.

We know plenty of people who had their children between the ages of 18-21, and the wonderful thing is that you are still fairly young when your children are leaving home for college.

My husband and I were 47 when our youngest daughter graduated from high school and moved away for college. It was lovely for us!

If a couple can make it work financially–and there are lots of ways that college students can make it work–why not have children?

IMO, the main reason people should avoid having children is that they are not yet married and capable of living on their own. Also keep in mind that in some families and communities, it is the societal norm, desired by the community, for the adult children and their parents to live close to each other or even under the same roof, and continue to build their families together, not apart as so many of us in the U.S. do.

So basically what I’m saying is that we need to be really careful when it comes to deciding when other people should start their families.

 

[Peeps]

“As for who paid for me to learn my ABCs it was my parents who paid for my parochial school education while paying high property taxes for everyone else’s kid.”

This is a real problem in the U.S.

As I’ve said in earlier posts, I believe that public school funding should be drastically cut.

When people get something for free, they do not value it. This could explain why public school achievement is abysmal for many children (and their families).

yes, of course I realize that many people living in true poverty would not be able to afford school. IMO, for these children, the churches of all types should step up and begin “free schools,” supported by their congregations and denominations, for poor children.

Also, corporations could and should start their own “company schools” so that all children in their area could receive an education. (I believe the Prairie School in Racine, WI, is such a school, and I think?? that their school provides the means for the local children to attend with a needs scholarship?? Not certain of that–perhaps that was only true in the past?)

I especially believe that hospitals and health care centers should get with it and start up their own elementary and secondary schools. There is such a horrific shortage of health care workers in all the departments. A hospital school could “grow their own employees!” And so many great mentors available in hospitals!! And opportunities for children and teens to volunteer–mainly in the arts and music nowadays (so many regulations against teens being involved with patients directly). But still–a weekly choir concert in the lobby would be sweet!

Finally, individuals could stop up and start schools. That’s how the school that we chose to send our daughters to started --a wealthy woman wanted all children to learn French (since in the early 20th Century, it was the language of international business). So she started a school in her basement and taught it herself, and the school grew into a Country Day School. Her home and the basement with her chalkboard and lesson plans is still in existence and available for tours!

And of course, there are the marvelous home schools and home school co-ops. We have several large home school co-ops in our city (several thousand families are involved), and these kids receive an excellent education and lots of social interaction and opportunities in sports, arts, theater, etc.

If public schools were doing their job, I would nix everything above. But the public schools are producing a very bad product in many parts of the U.S., and i say, “Away with them!”

And I also say that if families have their children enrolled in some other type of school than “public” (e.g., parochial school, homeschool, Country Day School, etc.), they should be EXEMPTED from paying the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools. If they wish to contribute to public schools as a charitable donation–great! But they shouldn’t be forced to pay double.

Like I said, no one values something they get for free.