Should states in the U.S raise minimum wage or abolish it completely?

[Endus]

No, they will not. Wages are generally sticky and don't quickly go down.
Whether they go down in the long run is less clear.

And there's also another large caveat: UBI is costly, the most obvious way of paying for it is taxing the high earners, which will mean that their wages will instead go up to compensate (and that may happen in a milli-second; wages are seen as more sticky on the way down) - and/or they will move elsewhere.

The difference in stickiness and short-sightedness of politicians will likely mean that the tax increase doesn't match the UBI for high earners in time, and if the high earners play their cards right they will be compensated for the tax increase - without negative compensation for the UBI.

People lose sight of the existence of the UBI and how percentages work.

Let's talk about a hypothetical extreme. A living-wage UBI offering $25,000/year, given to everyone, period.

At the same time, income taxes are adjusted so that they are a flat rate of 50% with no reductions or exceptions, that's the effective tax rate. I do not suggest a flat income tax here for policy reasons (though it's much more arguable with the backing of a UBI) but solely because it's just a lot easier to napkin math out, for simplicity. 50% is chosen just for being relatively high; I'd actually prefer a progressive-bracket system with a lower rate for lower incomes and higher for the wealthy, but that's a separate discussion and I'm only noting that here to forestall debating the virtues of this tax proposal.

Someone currently making $25k or less is obviously better-off, but where's the line?

If you're making $50k, you might think "hey, 50% of $50k is $25k, so that's the line, right?" Nope. You're paying taxes on that. I'll be using this for estimates on tax rates, using New York as the state because that was what it was when I opened it up; https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator

So 21.4% taxes, meaning a net income after-tax of $39,300. With the UBI, your take-home is actually $50,000. You're way better off.

$70,000? Right now you pay 25.2%, so your take-home is $52,360. With the UBI, $37,500 + $25,000 = $62,500. Still way more.

$100,000? 28.4% tax rate, so net take-home is $71,589. With the UBI, $50,000+$25,000, you're still better off at $75,000.

It's somewhere up around a gross income of $150k before the UBI's high tax rate actually translates to lower take-home.

Again, hypotheticals used to demonstrate a mathematical point, not as a firm policy recommendation.

Edit: The point is, focusing on the "costly" part is a distraction. It doesn't matter how much money travels through government hands. What should matter, at the end of the day, is individual take-home income, after-tax. Pushing more money through the government's hands resulting in more money for the vast majority of citizens, that's not "costing" those citizens in any appreciable sense. Budget size doesn't matter. Ensuring revenues line up with expenses, that is what matters.

[Forogil]

It's somewhere up around a gross income of $150k before the UBI's high tax rate actually translates to lower take-home.

Again, hypotheticals used to demonstrate a mathematical point, not as a firm policy recommendation.

Those exact numbers aren't important for my statements.

My first point was that the ones earning $50k or $150k wouldn't have a salary reduction with $25k just because UBI pays $25k - since salaries are normally downwards sticky.

My second point is that the ones earning $150k will (try to) get compensated for that additional tax (to pay for UBI), especially if the tax-increase happen at a different time than the UBI is introduced (which is likely due to how political systems are set up - first hand out money and then fund it).

And completely flat taxes without exceptions is something that is often discussed, but rarely (if ever) happens.

That isn't an objection to UBI - the objection to UBI is that instead of trying to create normal welfare systems as in other countries the US discussion isn't about trying to replicate good practices and gradually improve that, but trying to re-invent the wheel and go directly for UBI but lacking a clear path forward. UBI will not automatically eliminate fraud as envisioned - some will become tax fraud, some will be expats and dead people receiving UBI (or other ideas that I hadn't though of yet).

[Endus]

Those exact numbers aren't important for my statements.

My first point was that the ones earning $50k or $150k wouldn't have a salary reduction with $25k just because UBI pays $25k - since salaries are normally downwards sticky.

My second point is that the ones earning $150k will (try to) get compensated for that additional tax (to pay for UBI), especially if the tax-increase happen at a different time than the UBI is introduced (which is likely due to how political systems are set up - first hand out money and then fund it).

Frankly, pointing to political failure to implement policy isn't really an argument against the functionality of said policy, it's an argument for the incompetence/malfeasance of that particular political system.

I'm not saying it's an invalid point, it's just part of a different argument. The USA could very well be a failed state that simply has not quite collapsed yet. That's true. That doesn't mean UBI isn't possible, it means the American system of government is broken.

And completely flat taxes without exceptions is something that is often discussed, but rarely (if ever) happens

Like I said; I don't actually support a flat tax, it's just a lot easier to run napkin-math comparisons with. Don't confuse my aim at simplifying the point for the purpose of demonstration with a support for the particulars of that demonstration as actual policy. If I theorized some hypothetical progressive-bracket system, we could be kvetching about the particulars of those brackets rather than the central point; that UBI is eminently affordable if income taxes are increased, even when doing so does not actually result in reduced take-home incomes for working- and middle-class citizens (and a reduction of take-home for upper-class incomes is an eminently acceptable tradeoff for that gain).

That isn't an objection to UBI - the objection to UBI is that instead of trying to create normal welfare systems as in other countries the US discussion isn't about trying to replicate good practices and gradually improve that, but trying to re-invent the wheel and go directly for UBI but lacking a clear path forward. UBI will not automatically eliminate fraud as envisioned - some will become tax fraud, some will be expats and dead people receiving UBI (or other ideas that I hadn't though of yet).

This brings us back to the whole "maybe the US is a failed state that just hasn't yet collapsed" point, though.

Like, seriously; if your system's that fragile, it's a systemic failure. Not "could become a failure in the future"; that fragility itself is a failure.

[Forogil]

Frankly, pointing to political failure to implement policy isn't really an argument against the functionality of said policy, it's an argument for the incompetence/malfeasance of that particular political system.

I'm not saying it's an invalid point, it's just part of a different argument. The USA could very well be a failed state that simply has not quite collapsed yet. That's true. That doesn't mean UBI isn't possible, it means the American system of government is broken.

The point about politicians introducing things like pensions first, and paying for them later isn't just relevant for the USA.
Just look at history.

And people trying to get compensated with higher wages if the taxes increase is also fairly universal.

Like, seriously; if your system's that fragile, it's a systemic failure. Not "could become a failure in the future"; that fragility itself is a failure.

You are missing the main point which is that the UBI-discussion is ignoring everything that has been tried in other countries, and more or less worked and just discussing a fundamental massive changes instead.

Whether the USA is a failed state is another discussion.

[breadisfunny]

IMO, abolishing it and letting unions negotiate forth collective agreements is the best, else companies will always seek to keep low-wage jobs at minimum wage level.

We don't have minimum wage in my country, and even the lowest paying job makes like 500 dollars more than what burger flippers and waitresses earn in average in the U.S. We pay more taxes, but even with taxes included they still earn like 3-400 dollars more. That's because unions have fought and negotiated for these wages, and companies not having the ability to look at the lowest legal amount they can pay and still get away with it.

someone needs to go back and read their history books.

[Necromantic]

IMO, abolishing it and letting unions negotiate forth collective agreements is the best, else companies will always seek to keep low-wage jobs at minimum wage level.

We don't have minimum wage in my country, and even the lowest paying job makes like 500 dollars more than what burger flippers and waitresses earn in average in the U.S. We pay more taxes, but even with taxes included they still earn like 3-400 dollars more. That's because unions have fought and negotiated for these wages, and companies not having the ability to look at the lowest legal amount they can pay and still get away with it.

To me, it's a slippery slope.

I'm fine with people making realistic livable wages. And I stress the word "livable." There are plenty of people who made the decision not to do something with their life and work at minimum wage places then complain because they can't afford to live yet they try living out of their means.

To those people, I say...they make places like Save-A-Lot for a reason, shop there. Stop buying all big name brands at big stores. Stop thinking your bad habit materials need factored into budgets for how much you should make. And this includes smoking, drinking, etc. Your desire to go shopping online and blow your check before bills are paid is nobody's problem but yours. I see several people do this. They're always posting about all the nice new things they bought then the next week complaining about how much they struggle to pay bills.

Try to improve yourself to improve your life situation. Stop expecting the world to lower the bar to fit lazy lifestyles.

[Twdft]

---snip---

You never were poor and you don't know a single poor person.

[JohnBrown1917]

You never were poor and you don't know a single poor person.

They never are, or where poor but got lucky or where supported by the systems they want to get rid off.

[Elegiac]

To me, it's a slippery slope.

And to me, moral hazard continues to be a myth fabricated by well-off people to resolve their impostor syndrome stemming from being in a privileged position they fundamentally know they've not done anything to deserve.

Slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious for a reason.

[Necromantic]

Slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious for a reason.

To some, perhaps.

To some, the world is flat too.

[Captain N]

They never are, or where poor but got lucky or where supported by the systems they want to get rid off.

It's not even the people who were lucky. Most of the ones who were fortunate enough to win the social mobility lottery remember what it was like to suffer. They can vividly remember having to choose between keeping the electric on or having a meal. Those folks usually don't want others to go through the same things they did, especially if children are involved. The only folks who enjoy watching others suffer are sociopaths who need to feel better about their own mediocrity.

[Elegiac]

To some, perhaps.

To some, the world is flat too.

Difference here is that the evidence against flat earth is indisputable, whereas the only evidence you've provided is a rehash of the welfare queen myth and should be taken skeptically for that precise reason.

So yeah: pony up with some evidence moral hazard is a thing besides "my brother's sister's Tinder date's teacher's friend Becky said she saw someone wasting their money on drugs and then demanding financial assistance", or sit down.

[Necromantic]

Difference here is that the evidence against flat earth is indisputable, whereas the only evidence you've provided is a rehash of the welfare queen myth and should be taken skeptically for that precise reason.

So yeah: pony up with some evidence moral hazard is a thing besides "my brother's sister's Tinder date's teacher's friend Becky said she saw someone wasting their money on drugs and then demanding financial assistance", or sit down.

"Pony up with some evidence". Are you... serious? lmao

Oh, and nice strawman too. You're the same guy I remember telling me I was victim blaming for saying Blizzard should have their day in court, so why am I not surprised you're inventing things as you go.

Go troll someone else's comments who are not 10 steps ahead of you.

[Elegiac]

"Pony up with some evidence". Are you... serious? lmao

Oh, so you have none. Good to know.

[Necromantic]

Tells him to go troll someone else and he continues his strawman.

You can't make this stuff up, people.

[uuuhname]

"Pony up with some evidence". Are you... serious? lmao

Oh, and nice strawman too. You're the same guy I remember telling me I was victim blaming for saying Blizzard should have their day in court, so why am I not surprised you're inventing things as you go.

Go troll someone else's comments who are not 10 steps ahead of you.

I mean it's not like you've provided anything beyond your issue's with poor people committing the sin of trying to enjoy life a little bit.

[Elegiac]

Tells him to go troll someone else and he continues his strawman.

I don't think you quite understand what a strawman is, bruh.

Or was this nonsense not a serious statement on your part?

There are plenty of people who made the decision not to do something with their life and work at minimum wage places then complain because they can't afford to live yet they try living out of their means.

[Necromantic]

I mean it's not like you've provided anything beyond your issue's with poor people committing the sin of trying to enjoy life a little bit.

There doesn't need to be anything proved here. It's not a sin to enjoy life but live within your means. Stop going out and overbuying things well out of your budget range and playing the victim that you can't afford things and need a bigger income. That's a YOU problem (those that do it).

[Endus]

To me, it's a slippery slope.

I'm fine with people making realistic livable wages. And I stress the word "livable." There are plenty of people who made the decision not to do something with their life and work at minimum wage places then complain because they can't afford to live yet they try living out of their means.

To those people, I say...they make places like Save-A-Lot for a reason, shop there. Stop buying all big name brands at big stores. Stop thinking your bad habit materials need factored into budgets for how much you should make. And this includes smoking, drinking, etc. Your desire to go shopping online and blow your check before bills are paid is nobody's problem but yours. I see several people do this. They're always posting about all the nice new things they bought then the next week complaining about how much they struggle to pay bills.

Try to improve yourself to improve your life situation. Stop expecting the world to lower the bar to fit lazy lifestyles.

There are literally not enough jobs for every prospective worker to get a job. And that's just getting any job, not one paying a "livable" wage.

And to be clear, a living wage is somewhere north of $22/hour throughout the USA.

Since it's literally not possible for even all those seeking employment to get jobs paying any wage, let alone a living wage, this kind of "bootstraps" bullshit you're pushing is just deliberate, willful misanthropy. You're trying to justify your desire to foster human suffering and hardship. It isn't about anyone "being lazy", it's about you blaming people for failing to meet a literally impossible goal.

Edit: And I'll pre-emptively note that the above is about an impossibility regarding just those who are currently seeking work being able to get jobs. We haven't even gotten into all those who aren't actively looking for work, here.

[Santti]

Tells him to go troll someone else and he continues his strawman.

You can't make this stuff up, people.

That's not trolling.

In fact, I'd say you are closer to doing that than he is.

Welfare queen myth is bullshit.

And that last part of his? It's called comedy.