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

[Cæli]

Still more efficient than means testing upfront.



Source. Because the evidence shows the number of people who would be eligible for a means tested system but get denied due to said means testing is far less than the amount of fraud that goes on.

Noticing a distinct lack of evidence for your arguments.



Yes, because your chief concern is not raising taxes rather than actually helping anyone.



Don't need luck, I have all the assets said wealthy person left behind to confiscate and liquidate to make up any avoided taxes.

why bringing up means testing again? I never proposed to test anything, I proposed that to be request/declaration based, I'm not a native speaker, am I failing to explain myself?

to me "once money is given, getting it back is not a given". isn't that logical? when you give money to many persons (100 %) and you expect to get 100% back, there are steps than may reduce it to something less than that. on the other hand, if you only give what you're supposed to give, the issue doesn't appear. people are selfish so there's a chance that a fraud occurs and you lose some and that's without accounting with the added complexity of calculating how much to get back and the technical execution.

raising taxes is not something to take lightly. citizens care about that. I also care about helping those who need it. this is a priority, but taxes need to be as low as possible to maintain a sane environnement. there's also the subject of the allocation of money, maybe the money is poorly allocated by the state too which creates issues.

[Cæli]

No, you’re failing to understand that what you’re describing is literally means testing.

"A means test is a method for determining whether someone qualifies for financial assistance"
I suggested that the assistance comes following a request WITHOUT testing specifically if the person really qualifies or tells the truth. uhhh?

[Cæli]

You’re still setting an upper limit. Your method of deciding wether they qualify is to ask the potential recipient. Lying in this situation would be a crime as it is anytime you lie on a financial form for the government. And if you don’t think the IRS will check… so, yes, it’s means testing. You’re confusing testing with verification.

I was asked how I would do it if I made the rules, the IRS wouldn't check actively so no it wouldn't be testing. there would still be a fine if by accident someone in the administration finds out evidence of fraud, but that would require 0 expense to check things at scale for a potential fine

[Twdft]

And here it is, dropping the veil and saying the misantrophic af part out loud:

Just because you work somewhere 40 hours does not mean you deserve a livable wage.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Or the German version in our basic law which I find even better:

"Human dignity shall be inviolable"

Get a grip dude

[Necromantic]

And here it is, dropping the veil and saying the misantrophic af part out loud:



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Or the German version in our basic law which I find even better:

"Human dignity shall be inviolable"

Get a grip dude

Oh dear lord....

[Cæli]

The IRS wouldn’t do their basic job? Fascinating. Where are we gonna get the taxes from to pay for this now that your IRS no longer checks to make sure people are paying their taxes?

I don't know, I'm not the one complaining about means tests
making sure people are paying taxes is not the same thing as controlling if a person really needed financial assistance
first case, control, second, no control

[D3thray]

uh...simply give them the money they need if they don't declare having enough ressources maybe?
I mean I'm not sure what you expect, at one point you have to trust the citizens, on 1. their net worth they declare for taxation 2. consequently their needs to get help or not
if someone declares to have an income of 0, mention he has life issues, sign up for help, then he needs money to eat. you can have it on a form online.
still would cost far less than ubi
and if you make a law with a huge fine in case of fraud, but don't actually control it, you will waste no ressource on bureaucracy. you will only fine people on rare cases where the state discover a fraud by chance. this is more efficient than ubi.

almost like we do in my country. it works. except the state is giving way too much, they give more than the necessary to anyone. but that's another story.

In the US at least, we don’t declare net worth for taxation.

[Cæli]

You’re the one who wants one though, while complaining that people keep accurately pointing it out. See the earlier link explaining why shit like what you describe is bad.

theatlantic link? this reflects an opinion, not objective truth. as long as those who need help get help, and the state spends as little ressources as possible, I don't see any problems personally (I've read the link)

[Cæli]

https://qeconomics.org/ojs/forth/1241/1241-3.pdf

Try that then.

is that a paper arguing against "means testing"? I don't understand again how what I've talked about has anything to do with means testing
I don't care about means testing personally, I don't want to test people for helping them
we're back to post #249, we're in a loop

[Kathandira]

Much depends on how many hours you work, I suppose.

When I consider a Livable Wage, I think full time employment under 1 job at no more than 40 hours a week. The wage this should earn you should permit you to live alone in a 1 bedroom apartment. You should have enough after rent for utilities, food, clothes, insurance, transportation, and communication.

From the link:

The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which does equate a livable wage and would set a full-time worker earning that wage below the federal poverty line of $26,200 for a family of four. A livable wage in the least expensive city in the United States, Harlington, Texas, is $10.47 an hour. In Manhattan, the most expensive city, the livable wage is $17.46 an hour, and one would still need roommates

First bolded, I do not personally believe a single income's livable wage should be considered enough to provide for a family of four. It should support 1 person.

Second bolded, again, not a livable wage. A livable wage should not require one to seek additional residents in order to pay the bills.

[Endus]

When I consider a Livable Wage, I think full time employment under 1 job at no more than 40 hours a week. The wage this should earn you should permit you to live alone in a 1 bedroom apartment. You should have enough after rent for utilities, food, clothes, insurance, transportation, and communication.

From the link:

The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which does equate a livable wage and would set a full-time worker earning that wage below the federal poverty line of $26,200 for a family of four. A livable wage in the least expensive city in the United States, Harlington, Texas, is $10.47 an hour. In Manhattan, the most expensive city, the livable wage is $17.46 an hour, and one would still need roommates

First bolded, I do not personally believe a single income's livable wage should be considered enough to provide for a family of four. It should support 1 person.

Second bolded, again, not a livable wage. A livable wage should not require one to seek additional residents in order to pay the bills.

What you're describing is a subsistence wage, not a living wage.

[Twdft]

Oh dear lord....

So you don't care much about constitutions. I'm pretty sure your religion of choice has similar commands...

"So that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

[Necromantic]

So you don't care much about constitutions. I'm pretty sure your religion of choice has similar commands...

"So that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Cæli]

Then we’re back to square one and won’t get past it because you literally want means testing to limit ubi.

definition of means testing : "A means test is a method for determining whether someone qualifies for financial assistance"
I don't want to determine if someone qualifies for assistance, I want the opposite, I'm okay with trusting him directly and not determining anything before giving assistance
so can you stop with that means testing thingy please, thanks

[Kathandira]

What you're describing is a subsistence wage, not a living wage.

True, there are levels. Correct me if im wrong.

Substance Wage. Living Wage, Thriving Wage.

[Endus]

True, there are levels. Correct me if im wrong.

Substance Wage. Living Wage, Thriving Wage.

I've never heard of "thriving wage". It might be used as a descriptive term, but it isn't something anyone targets as a policy objective.

"Subsistence wage" is enough to get by on without being homeless or skipping meals, but it falls short in a lot of ways detrimental to mental health and basic safety, and also doesn't allow for families to exist.

A "living wage" is where those measures get taken care of; it provides for a modest but comfortable lifestyle. Families are possible, though single incomes might get tight, depending on the exact quantification.

Realistically, I don't consider any position that doesn't account for families to be a reasonable proposition. You're setting up a circumstance where a single parent with a couple kids is going to suffer hardship. That's unfairly punitive and there really isn't any good argument I have ever seen to justify that kind of stance.

Now, we can discuss whether a minimum living wage is the best solution. A lot of the complaints are "but single people without kids get way more than they might need, because the wage has to account for the possibility of kids" or the like. Which is a fair point, but that's an issue of basing things on a wage system in the first place. There is no way a wage system will achieve parity, there; either single childless people get a lot more money than they need, or single parents don't get enough. It's one or the other, and I lean towards not establishing a system that established a level of suffering. If we want to get away from a wage-only baseline, though, we have options like a UBI or the like, which is actually my preferred model. You can provide variable supplements for minors (they're sharing a residence and transportation costs by default, mostly, for instance) and that way, single parents get the extra income they need without bumping single childless people's intake. And wages can be largely unregulated, since workers can always say "fuck that, I'm not working for peanuts, the UBI already covers my needs". There'd be a lot of rejigging of wage levels, but we can also start income taxes without a tax-free bracket at the bottom (because, again, UBI basically covers the same intent already).

My ideal is a national UBI, but a minimum living wage is an acceptable step on the way there if people want to reject the idea of a UBI on ideological grounds.

[cubby]

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.

The U.S. is a LONG way from raising our taxes to allow more services to be provided. So for now, we need a high ($15-$20/hr) minimum wage while we push for basic human services in one of the richest countries in the world.

I hate that all I can see for the future of the United States is some dipshit version of The Handmaid's Tale.

[Cæli]

Asking them is a means of determining whether they qualify. No means test means EVERY person qualifies regardless of financials. Glad I could clear that up for you.

maybe one day I'll understand why there's some people who are really obsessed by taking other people's money, giving a lot of that money to those who don't need it among others, and hoping to get the appropriate amount of that money back

maybe all I need is to "watch how that turns out" with a ubi system, how can I predict the future if it wasn't really tried right?

[Cæli]

Maybe do some more research on UBI.

no, I need to watch it in action at scale in the us, not small "experiments"

[Cæli]

Glad you support ubi for the entire US. Welcome aboard.

I don't really support the idea itself, but I'm really curious to see how it turns out, since there's so many people seemingly obsessed by it, I want to see it in action and see what happens and see the reaction of the supporters

I've read your means testing definition again, I would not be asking people if they want help in fact, rather it's them declaring what they have and asking for help if needed, and the money comes in return; so the way I understand it is that everyone qualifies by default, which wouldn't fit your definition of means testing?
I would ask citizens one thing, and that's what they have in order to tax them properly, but I wouldn't ask if they need help as it's an unnecessary step