Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit

M

mathematician1.618

Member
My hours were even based on some sort of backwards commission at Crackhead Barrel where I worked in the general store. I got no more money for making more sales, merely more hours. And, I got bitched at and lost hours when sales were low. I worked the 5:45 AM to 11:00 AM shift...Who wants to buy comforters at 6:00 AM?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
Should there be a reduced sales tax for poor people?

There is no increased burden from an even tax rate in my eyes.

100 a week is not what a 40 hour a week person would make anyways. Poor people get more back in taxes then they put in too. When my hubby was making 9 dollars an hour we had a negative effective tax rate.
Click to expand...
In an ideal society, those with less should pay less in taxes, those with more should pay more, that's called a progressive tax system, that's what we had during "the golden age of capitalism" between 1950-1970 and that's what led to a prosperous middle class capable of purchasing goods in a consumer economy. It all started with Henry Ford paying his employees enough they could buy his product. He knew it was good for his business and good for his employees.

The effective capital gains tax rate for billionaires in this country sits around 15%, for you and me it's closer to 30%. Do you think that's fair to you?
Flaming Pie said:
I would be ok with a $10 minimum federal wage. Isn't that what you guys said matched inflation? 10.10?
Click to expand...
$10.10 isn't enough, the same problems with income inequality and the distribution of wealth exist. The minimum should be at least $15/hour across the board. That would significantly change things for the poor & middle class. It's estimated raising it to $10.10 will bring 2% of people out of poverty in America
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
Should there be a reduced sales tax for poor people?

There is no increased burden from an even tax rate in my eyes.

100 a week is not what a 40 hour a week person would make anyways. Poor people get more back in taxes then they put in too. When my hubby was making 9 dollars an hour we had a negative effective tax rate.
Click to expand...
Isn't a flat tax just that? With a flat tax, there are no deductions or tax credits so your Husband's wages at 13/hr would be taxed at 5% with no tax credits, no "getting more back in taxes".

By the way, this flat tax would in no way be 5%, it would have to be more than that, I remember seeing 17% floated. In which case, your husbands 40 hr wk at $13/hr would be taxed at 17%, or a tax bill of $88 per week. Your $560 paycheck goes to $472 of course then you are levied for social security and state income, leaving you with around $400/week. Your mortgage is what, around $660, so you'd have about $1000 to pay for everything else -- lights, heating, gas, car repair, clothes, medical expenses, food and so forth. I'm glad you can do it but that's not leaving you with much margin for savings in case something unexpected happens, like your husband getting hurt.

The income tax was always intended to be a progressive tax. Those that make more can afford to pay more. Its better for you and everybody else if you have a little more for taking care of your own.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
So what would be fair, 5/12/25. Low/middle/top.

I believe he gets 450 take home after taxes and insurance and our mortgage is 620.

So since we already get charged a state income tax, why do they tax sales? Just curious what yall think.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Isn't a flat tax just that? With a flat tax, there are no deductions or tax credits so your Husband's wages at 13/hr would be taxed at 5% with no tax credits, no "getting more back in taxes".

By the way, this flat tax would in no way be 5%, it would have to be more than that, I remember seeing 17% floated. In which case, your husbands 40 hr wk at $13/hr would be taxed at 17%, or a tax bill of $88 per week. Your $560 paycheck goes to $472 of course then you are levied for social security and state income, leaving you with around $400/week. Your mortgage is what, around $660, so you'd have about $1000 to pay for everything else -- lights, heating, gas, car repair, clothes, medical expenses, food and so forth. I'm glad you can do it but that's not leaving you with much margin for savings in case something unexpected happens, like your husband getting hurt.

The income tax was always intended to be a progressive tax. Those that make more can afford to pay more. Its better for you and everybody else if you have a little more for taking care of your own.
Click to expand...
My work goes towards savings. I get what you are saying tho.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member

I guess I kind of see it like this. For families. We all pay for the benefits of government. Roads, schools, police, firemen, etc.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
How can a percentage be anything besides a percentage?
Click to expand...
so let's say everyone pays 20%.

the person making $15,000 a year not only has $12,000 to live on. that's drastic. they just went from above poverty to below poverty.

but the person making $200,000 a year still has $160,000 to live on. that's comfortable.

it's a regressive tax that harms the working poor.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:

I guess I kind of see it like this. For families. We all pay for the benefits of government. Roads, schools, police, firemen, etc.
Click to expand...
That's not even close to what we are talking about. The difference between all those brothers in the video was tiny compared to where the real money in this country is held.

Why tax the wealthy more heavily than those with lower income? Because that's where the money is. Your "equal" share via a flat tax puts you at a real disadvantage when it comes to taking care of yourself and preparing the next generation for success. Society is better off if we use a progressive tax and you keep a greater percentage of your income to spend on your family. Its not about you, its about keeping this society healthy.

And its not a free ride. You work hard, you do better, you grow your income, you create value with your labor. Eventually, if all goes well, you will move into the higher tax brackets but you also have a lot more discretionary income to do with as you will.

From: http://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/
So here was the situation in 2007:

Percentile ; % of Total Income ; avg family income

Top 0.1% ; 11% ; $2,569,388

Top 1 % ; 23.5% ; $760,680

Top 10% ; 50% ; $115,347
Let’s reflect on these numbers: The top 10% has as much income as everybody else; and one-half of what comes in to the top 10% goes to the top 1%. And the income of the top 1% is heavily concentrated at the very top.

 
Last edited:
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Should a worker's wage be based on his skill level or the amount he earns for the company?
Click to expand...
Neither, a worker's wage should be determined by the amount the employer offers based on what he feels the position is worth and how badly he wants to secure the employment of that particular employee. Then, as always, the perspective employee can either accept, decline or counteroffer.

Pretty straightforward, common sense shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top