Minimum Wage Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FWIW, I think the biggest divide is between people who believe that people have to take control of their life vs. people who believe you have to hold the hand and guide people thru their life. 

Personally, I think people do better when you say "Hey, it's your life. This is how it's going to be.   Make it work." 

Obviously, others don't share that philosophy.
6/26/2014 10:23 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 10:22:00 AM (view original):
And that's why I asked you if you were comfortable with the idea of the same tax rate from $30K-$400K, and then higher rates after that, and you said no.  I can understand the idea of the guy who makes $150K valuing his next dollar (or use a different term than value, you understand what I'm saying) as much as the guy who makes $30K. But there are plenty of people who make $500K+ who don't need his next dollar as much as the guy making $50K. You disagree.
Well, my immediate post after his explains a lot.   But people create their own circumstances.   I don't know what anyone, other than myself, "needs".  And I'm not comfortable telling them, or taxing them, like I do know.
6/26/2014 10:25 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
On a personal level, this is why I'm not comfortable determining "need" for others.   2005-2007, business was good.  Very good.  I "needed" a lot of things.  2008-2010, business was horrible.   Very bad(well below poverty level bad in 2008).   As my bank account dwindled, I found I didn't "need" very much at all. 

I lived in the same house(bought in 2005), had the same wife(married in 2000) and basically lived the same life but without the whistles and flashing lights.    

What you "need", I found, is very fluid. 
6/26/2014 10:33 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?
Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.
I agree, but that wasn't your argument.
The argument is that there should be a ratio that caps pay. I don't know how else to stop 1000x salaries.
6/26/2014 10:34 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?
Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.
I agree, but that wasn't your argument.
The argument is that there should be a ratio that caps pay. I don't know how else to stop 1000x salaries.
Your argument was Bill James 10:1, and people flipped out.  Rightfully so.  If the argument was 100:1, you would have gotten less resistance. 
6/26/2014 10:37 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?
Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.
I agree, but that wasn't your argument.
The argument is that there should be a ratio that caps pay. I don't know how else to stop 1000x salaries.
Who put you in charge of stopping 1000x salaries?
6/26/2014 10:44 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?
Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.
I agree, but that wasn't your argument.
The argument is that there should be a ratio that caps pay. I don't know how else to stop 1000x salaries.
Your argument was Bill James 10:1, and people flipped out.  Rightfully so.  If the argument was 100:1, you would have gotten less resistance. 
Maybe.  But I'd still argue that a CEO is more than 100x more important than a file clerk. 
6/26/2014 10:46 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 10:33:00 AM (view original):
On a personal level, this is why I'm not comfortable determining "need" for others.   2005-2007, business was good.  Very good.  I "needed" a lot of things.  2008-2010, business was horrible.   Very bad(well below poverty level bad in 2008).   As my bank account dwindled, I found I didn't "need" very much at all. 

I lived in the same house(bought in 2005), had the same wife(married in 2000) and basically lived the same life but without the whistles and flashing lights.    

What you "need", I found, is very fluid. 
I can understand the idea of "you can find a way" but I don't think the guy getting taxed more making $500K is affected that much than you may have been in 2008.  Let's say we instituted a flat tax across the board in 2007.  Would that have been good for you in 2008?  I don't mean to dive into your personal life, I'm just trying to make the point that you're probably more comfortable getting taxed at x% of your next dollar now than you would be in 2008.  So more hard-working people, like yourself, who need his next dollar badly, get taxed at a lower percentage than the guy who doesn't need it as badly. That's all.    
6/26/2014 10:48 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?
Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.
I agree, but that wasn't your argument.
The argument is that there should be a ratio that caps pay. I don't know how else to stop 1000x salaries.
Your argument was Bill James 10:1, and people flipped out.  Rightfully so.  If the argument was 100:1, you would have gotten less resistance. 
Maybe.  But I'd still argue that a CEO is more than 100x more important than a file clerk. 
I think it depends on the specific business, but sure.
6/26/2014 10:53 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 10:33:00 AM (view original):
On a personal level, this is why I'm not comfortable determining "need" for others.   2005-2007, business was good.  Very good.  I "needed" a lot of things.  2008-2010, business was horrible.   Very bad(well below poverty level bad in 2008).   As my bank account dwindled, I found I didn't "need" very much at all. 

I lived in the same house(bought in 2005), had the same wife(married in 2000) and basically lived the same life but without the whistles and flashing lights.    

What you "need", I found, is very fluid. 
I can understand the idea of "you can find a way" but I don't think the guy getting taxed more making $500K is affected that much than you may have been in 2008.  Let's say we instituted a flat tax across the board in 2007.  Would that have been good for you in 2008?  I don't mean to dive into your personal life, I'm just trying to make the point that you're probably more comfortable getting taxed at x% of your next dollar now than you would be in 2008.  So more hard-working people, like yourself, who need his next dollar badly, get taxed at a lower percentage than the guy who doesn't need it as badly. That's all.    

I made some MAJOR lifestyle adjustments in 2008.   I could have definitely used my full paycheck to help me determine what I needed more.   Excluding the weeks I made nothing(or took money from my personal account to pay business expenses), I'd have preferred to have my full, yet tiny, check and pay the 23%(or whatever) sales tax than have the 25-30%(I don't really know) income tax come out off the top.  I won't pretend I was going hungry but I'm a big "spend less than you make" guy and I was doing my best to accomplish that with my limited funds.   In June of 2008, I couldn't have given a flying **** about my income tax return in March 2009. 

I've already conceded that making LeBron or Trump pay another 3m next year and putting an extra 2k in my pocket is good for me.   But I'm not built that way.  If LeBron or Donald wanted me to have 2k more in my pocket, they'd write me a check.    

6/26/2014 11:05 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
OK, and I'm more of a "do what's best for the economy when it makes sense" kind of guy when it comes to many things.  So the millionaires of the world paying a higher rate in taxes and not missing a beat, which puts more money in Joe Everyman's pocket, and thus can buy the products that millionaires are selling? That's a good thing.  Again, philosophical differences we have when it comes to taxation.
6/26/2014 11:09 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
As I said, it's the difference between "It's your life.  Run it" and "Hey, you're not doing so well.  Let me help you" philosophy. 

FWIW, I have no problem with "Let me help you."   I contribute regularly to the local animal shelter(I have for the last 20+ years, including 2008) but that's voluntary.   No one should be forced to help.   Taxing the better off more to help those that aren't doing as well with the "They'll miss it less" credo doesn't sit well with me.
6/26/2014 11:16 AM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 56 251 107
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, I think the biggest divide is between people who believe that people have to take control of their life vs. people who believe you have to hold the hand and guide people thru their life. 

Personally, I think people do better when you say "Hey, it's your life. This is how it's going to be.   Make it work." 

Obviously, others don't share that philosophy.
THIS....

this is the biggest difference between libs and conservatives.

both want to help people.... conservatives provide outlets for help (foundations, charities, shelters, donate time, etc) for someone who WANTS to help themselves. Liberals want to hold the hand of EVERY person in need all the way to the foundation, charity, shelter, etc.

my problem is that its a waste of money to try to help those that don't truly want help (only money). Like a teaching a class... if a kid does not want to learn, will they really benefit from your teaching? No, so you focus on those that want to learn.... and hope those that don't have a wake up call when they finally hit rock bottom.
6/26/2014 11:48 AM (edited)
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 56 251 107
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Honest question - if this wasn't Bill James, and it was Joe the Economist you've never heard of, would you be preaching the 10:1 idea?
Yes. James isn't the first to argue for this idea.

I think executive salaries 1000x higher than average workers are also bad for the economy.
I agree, but that wasn't your argument.
The argument is that there should be a ratio that caps pay. I don't know how else to stop 1000x salaries.
stop trying to 'stop' them and start working towards them. Thats your problem.

I have employees that complain about the 'perks' of management. I tell them they have 2 options.... either complain about those so-called 'perks' so that by the time you're a manager you will not get to enjoy the perks... or work hard to get promoted and enjoy the perks. Thats it... only 2 options..
6/26/2014 11:50 AM (edited)
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
So there's no "work hard and don't get the promotion?" Or even "work harder than those guys work and don't get the promotion?" Because I've seen those as well.  

The "hard work to salary" payscale isn't always accurate.  1000 to 1 ratios are probably too high.
6/26/2014 12:01 PM
◂ Prev 1...106|107|108|109|110...127 Next ▸
Minimum Wage Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.