What wage is just?

[Dracarys]

They most certainly are, and I do not believe their employers feel like they are simply giving them money.

Ok, they pay them a high wage for their skilled labor. Where do we disagree? This thread is about government forcing employers to pay an artificially high wage to mostly unskilled workers. I don’t understand your issue.

 

[tafan2]

No, the thread is about determining what a just wage is. The OP and it’s associated model say nothing about the government mandating any wage.

It has been derailed from the just wage topic because people do not like the Church’s teaching.

 

[YourNameHere]

Actually it is just the opposite. People are willing to work hard. But employers do not want to pay a fair wage for that hard work.

 

[YourNameHere]

I am not happy to pay exorbatant property taxes so how do I opt out? I can’t.

You could move to another country. Maybe a country with fewer of us Catholics? That way you would not pay for us catholic families, who have multiple kids.

 

[YourNameHere]

No. Libertarians are for less regulations. Less regulations usually are what get us into trouble in this country.

 

[Dracarys]

No, the thread is about determining what a just wage is. The OP and it’s associated model say nothing about the government mandating any wage.

But the government does mandate a minimum wage so I discussed it.

Secondly I did mention determining a " living wage but that number us different from person to person. I say let the market determine what any given wage is. Wether one is able to live on it or not is irrelevant. McDonalds and other restaurants can’t pay more than they do or a Big Mac will cost $20. What good is that? Jobs at McDonalds are for high school kids entering the work force. Their parents are supposed to support them. As I said, if you want more money acquire skills, knowledge, or talent and apply accordingly.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Leonhard:

Dracarys:

You must realize that 3.1% of not much is still not enough.

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.

How is it a nonsense answer ? … My point is that with all the entitlements you get from your socialist state you can not afford to increase your NATO contribution.

I’ve quoted the line of arguments in this thread. I think you intended to give an insult about 3.1% of “nothing” was not enough. And that “nothing” being our GDP. If that’s the case your following comment makes no sense, because you’ve shifted the goal post to talking about “What’s left after welfare”, which isn’t what you talked about originally.

I talked about 3.1% of our GDP. And that would be even almost twice as much as the state of Kansas pays for their military.

If you believe we don’t pay our fair share, you should be asking people in Kansas to cough up more money.

your socialist state

Denmark is not a socialist state anymore than the US is a libertarian oligarchy.

Leonhard":

That’s not how taxation works. … Taxes are paid by all in Denmark. In fact the lower and middle class pay more than half of them.

Really? So your college education was paid for by money that just materialized out of thin air right? … Wealthy people are paying your way.

You fail at insults, the lower and middle class paid for my education. Now my income is at the top 1% and I pay my share of taxes. I’ve calculated that even disregarding taxes paid on dividends, stock sale and bonds, that I’ll have payed back my education more than twice during my life time.

Also, again, most of the taxes, as I said (and you didn’t read it), most of the taxes are paid by the lower and middle class. So its really the lower and middle class laborers I should be thanking.

Leonhard:

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

That is not what my research said,

There is nothing to discuss here, your research is wrong and I am right.

Do you mean $15 to $18 an hour minimum wage?

Yes, thank you for the correction. 15$ to 18$ per hour.

Why is it you want to interfear with the free market?

I haven’t made any claim about interfering with the free market in this thread. Only a comment about what was moral, or immoral to pay adult people trying to make a living.

 

[Dracarys]

People are willing to work hard. But employers do not want to pay a fair wage for that hard work.

Wrong. I have been saying all along that wages are set BY THE MARKET. Employers will loose good employees if they don’t pay enough. Employees won’t earn more than what utility they add to their employer. Burger flippers don’t get paid what brain surgeons do.

 

[YourNameHere]

If McDonalds cannot pay more to their employees, let them go out of business.
I have never seen any sign posted at a McDonald that said, only school kids need to apply for work.

 

[Dracarys]

And that “nothing” being our GDP. If that’s the case your following comment makes no sense, because you’ve shifted the goal post to talking about “What’s left after welfare”, which isn’t what you talked about originally.

I did not mean an insult. I meant you should change the goal post all along. Since your country is enjoying the luxury of having so many entitlements I was wondering how much more you could expand your GDP without them.

Denmark is not a socialist state anymore than the US is a libertarian oligarchy.

Maybe not socialist technically, but the result is the same. Let’s say entitlement state.

You fail at insults, the lower and middle class paid for my education. Now my income is at the top 1% and I pay my share of taxes. I’ve calculated that even disregarding taxes paid on dividends, stock sale and bonds, that I’ll have payed back my education more than twice during my life time.

I am not insulting I just don’t believe your math. Considering the time value of money and considering how long it took you to get to that high income I doubt Denmark got a good deal. You may also be unique. Do you think the liberal art majors like literature majors or ethnic study majors are paying it back? I don’t think so.

Are you saying that no wealthy person contributed in any way? If that’s true I would be one angry middle class Dane

There is nothing to discuss here, your research is wrong and I am right.

Oh excuse me your rate is 52 not 55! You think that is any better? LOL

Yes, thank you for the correction. 15$ to 18$ per hour.

How pray tell did you reach that number? Again, thin air. Some employers like restaurants simply can’t afford that. The money isn’t there. Their profit margins are too thin. As I said before, it’s not employers or employees that determine wages; it’s THE MARKET.

haven’t made any claim about interfering with the free market in this thread. Only a comment about what was moral, or immoral to pay adult people trying to make a living.

Ok, so you have set yourself up as the arbitor of what company is or is not moral. WOW you have a pretty hefty ego!

 

[Dracarys]

If McDonalds cannot pay more to their employees, let them go out of business.
I have never seen any sign posted at a McDonald that said, only school kids need to apply for

You don’t really think things through very well. First millions of people rely on cheap inexpensive fast food. You want to deprive them of that source?

Secondly McDonalds is a legal business that has every right to survive and not have egotistical idealist tell them how much money they can make or spend.

 

[vz71]

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

Seems the free lunch isn’t so free after all.

 

[leonhardprintz]

I was wondering how much more you could expand your GDP without them.

It would be 1.5% moved out some other parts of the budget. Our welfare constitutes a lot more than that, by an order of magnitude. Some parts would be cut back, and in fact that’s just what the government has been doing slowly for the past two decades or so.

Really it was just be a gradual extension of politics as usual.

Maybe not socialist technically, but the result is the same.

Its neither socialism in the formal sense, or informal sense. Denmark has a free market economy, and there are property rights. This is pretty much the antithesis of a socialist state by definition.

Considering the time value of money and considering how long it took you to get to that high income I doubt Denmark got a good deal.

For five years they paid me less than a fourth of my current salary. And that’s my current salary without factoring in any kind of promotion, or earnings from investments.

Are you saying that no wealthy person contributed in any way?

No, I said very specifically that the lower and middle class paid more than half of the taxes, so most of my thanks should go to them. I did not say that the wealthy didn’t contribute.

You’re reading things into my posts that just aren’t there.

Oh excuse me your rate is 52 not 55! You think that is any better?

Yes, especially since its basically not 52% at all but a lot less. In fact in order to be taxed even above 45% you’d have to be making more than 200000$ per year.

 

[leonhardprintz]

How pray tell did you reach that number? Again, thin air.

“What is truth” - Pontius Pilate to Jesus of Nazareth.

There is nothing subjective about this number as such. Its easy to calculate the cost of living when you stipulate what an adult human being needs at the very least. Living Wage Calculator

I actually referred to the basic living expenses that would need to paid: Housing, food, clothing, phone and internet access. I specified nothing about the quality of those either, just that it should be enough for a grown person to keep alive in modern society. I then made references to multiple studies.

If you wish for the living wage to be lower, cheaper housing, clothing, food, phone and internet access has to be available. As Pope Leo XIIIth argued in his encyclical “On the condition of labor” a worker should be paid enough that they can live in “reasonable and frugal comfort”.

It is also taught in the same, and in similar encyclicals that cheating the worker out of that wage, if it is possible for the owner to pay it, is to commit injustice. And I would agree.

Some employers like restaurants simply can’t afford that.

Where I live its the norm.

Ok, so you have set yourself up as the arbitor of what company is or is not moral. WOW you have a pretty hefty ego!

I have not discussed any particular company. I rarely would because that requires one to know all aspects of a case.

I’m simply pointing out a moral principle and defending it.

There is nothing egotistical about a moral discussion. If it required an ego to discuss moral philosophy, then this forum should be shut down, and any discussion of wrong doing should cease. At any rate I’ve only pointed out the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches in a rather stern and binding way in regards to how workers should be compensated for their work. The answer is that they should be paid a living wage. While one can find special cases: war, emergencies, or work offered to youth or those who are being provided still by their parents, etc. It is still the case that a worker should be compensated for their work, and that if they can be paid a living wage they should be offered one.

I’d rather not run a company paying adult men and women less than 15$ per day. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night with a good conscience.

 

[tafan2]

. I say let the market determine what any given wage is. Wether one is able to live on it or not is irrelevant.

But this is not inline with Church teaching.

Jobs at McDonalds are for high school kids entering the work force.

Great, so a just wage for a high school kid is less than for a 30 year old man with a family. Your point? One minimum wage doesn’t work? Agreed. Beyond that, it’s a red herring.

 

[_Ruby]

am not a chartered accountant, but according to all my research your tax code has expanded to over three times the size it was. As I suspected you are glossing over the high marginal rate for those making 150 plus of 45 %. How do you think it’s fair for your government to confiscate over half the wealth of your more successful citizens. I say more than 50% because after you add in the insurance, the two tier capital gains tax, and the additional 13500 one may have to pay for pensions. In addition you all have to pay the VAT.
I also don’t understand why people who don’t have children have to pay for your maternity leave. Would you go to your neighbors and demand they give you money for baby food etc?

Is that research the same as you did when you falsely claimed: ‘‘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%.’’.

Also your maths is wrong. Someone earning 160K a year would take home £95836 after tax. That is a take home amount of 60% of their total earning, so 40% went in tax. Not ‘more than 50%’ like you said.

You can calculate it here:

https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

The state pension deduction is taken as part of the national insurance tax. The separate pension amount in my pay slip (and earlier example) is for an optional private employer provided pension scheme that all people can opt out of should they wish.

To clear up your question on relative wages and cost of living, around 82% of tax payers are on the basic rate, 14% earn enough to have some income taxed at 40% and the remaining 4% earn enough to have deductions from the 45% bracket. A very comfortable salary before tax in the UK would be in the 30-40k range outside of London.

Again, people who ‘dont have children’ are not paying for my maternity leave. I have been paying into the system via national insurance contributions for the past 10 years, as has my husband. THAT is paying for my maternity leave. That is how the system works

I also pay in for services I don’t personally use - My income tax pays for job seekers allowance payments even though I have never been unemployed, it pays for disability or carers allowance even though im not disabled etc. The point of a collective pot is that everyone pays in and they get benefits in kind when needed. Its not tit for tat. Someone who doesnt have kids might have a stroke and need lifelong medical care that exceeds the cost of their income tax contributions, my payments as a low user of medical care would cover that.

You keep flip flopping all over the place with this entire topic. According to you, either people in welfare states are ‘lazy entitled brats’ who should be ‘thanking rich people’ for paying for them OR they are paying income taxes, hidden taxes, complex, convoluted taxes every which way to fund these ‘outrageous’ demands.

You rage against people expecting ‘a free lunch’ and then get another bee in your bonnet when you’re told how the 96% of people in employment are contributing to this system for their whole working lives.

 

[Socrates92]

I doubt catholic families have that significant an effect on the kids per capita ratio.

 

[vz71]

I actually referred to the basic living expenses that would need to paid: Housing, food, clothing, phone and internet access

Why is internet access considered part of basic living expenses?

What Catholic principle specifies this?

 

[rufacewori]

If you’re stupid enough to work with me, you are too stupid to use money wisely. And frankly I don’t see why I should spend MY MONEY to finance that stupid decision.

 

[Peeps]

Catholicism is one of the biggest religions in the U.S., meaning that many Americans profess Catholicism as their religion.

So here’s my suggestion–all Catholics who own businesses or companies and are in the position of determining the wages of their employees should pay a “living wage” according to their area of the country (yes, a living wage in NYC will be much higher than a living wage in a small town in Northern Illinois!) to all the adults who are employed by their company.

If all the Catholic companies are paying that decent living wage, many people will apply to work at the company, or leave their company to apply to work at the Catholic company. Also, hopefully the products or services offered by the Catholic company would be so good because of the satisfied workers that the customer base would grow, and this would mean expansion of the Catholic company.

In other words, we Catholics need to set the example. I don’t think there are any laws governing the maximum salary that a company can offer, so there is nothing to stop a Catholic company C.E.O. from offering a really great salary and benefits package.

And since Catholicism is one of the biggest religions in the U.S., the actions of these Catholic companies would be a fantastic witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and perhaps other people in the Christian religions would follow suit and also offer living wages and benefits, and eventually it would become the norm in this country rather than a rare exception.

In turn, we all need to buy products and services from these Catholic companies that we know are treating their employees well.

I do believe, BTW, that many U.S. companies truly do offer the best wage that they can realistically afford to offer.

And I also think that suggesting that companies who can’t or won’t offer a living wage should just go out of business is irresponsible. Many of these companies will hire people with no skills, inadequate schooling, various disabilities (e.g., Downs), age issues (e.g., senior citizens who must supplement their meager retirement income), poor language skills (or very limited English), and people who have been in trouble with the law. These people need to start somewhere, and the small-wage fast food joints and other companies that traditionally have been “temporary” places to work have done a pretty good job of hiring people who have “issues” and giving them a chance to learn some basic life skills and earn a good work record that can help them to move up in life.