ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No, that's called 'earned income' and it belongs to the employee- no matter who paid them.
No wonder republicans can't add.
Neoliberal Economics is DEAD
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
No, that's called 'earned income' and it belongs to the employee- no matter who paid them.
No wonder republicans can't add.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Where did that earned income come from for a government employee?
All of our salaries are earned income that (are) belong to us.
You've dug in on this haven't you. I'll move along and let you think part of a government employee income comes from tax payers the rest from a magical money fairy.
Buck is agreeing with you, that should make you rethink your position completely.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, have a meltdown. i insist.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Again, no matter who pays the salary, it belongs to the employee.
Your confusion is about some difference BEFORE it gets paid to the employee. That may come from taxes, but the work still needs to be done. You're suggesting government workers should work for free? That they don't deserve to get paid, OR to earn interest on their pension contributions? That's Fox News logic if ever I heard it.
The fact that @UncleBuck she's with me is only relevant insofar as it's the truth, or generally accepted way of looking at things.
You'd have its believe that who an employee earns their paycheck from makes a difference as to how they invest it. That's incorrect.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Let's review where this went off the tracks. I made the comment that the article you posted was claiming that contributions to pensions were not coming from taxpayers, they coming from the employees themselves.
I said that it's a misnomer because all of the compensation (before earnings from an investment) is payed for by taxpayers. You said nut uh. Now I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Everything else you are trying to attribute to me saying is nothing more than utter bullshit. That's how you earned the Buck comparison. You were wrong about something and instead of being an adult about it, you erect some strawman to knock down simply to protect your ego.
Look at what you are claiming that I'm saying, then try to find a post that backs up your assertion. Should keep you busy for a while.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nice post meltdown edit.
i thought you had me on ignore though? is your ignore button broken?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
What I don't understand is why it matters to you whether taxpayers are paying the wages of the employees. Once the employees earn the money, IT'S THEIRS. And, so are pension 'contributions.' You may be falling for the renaming trick, where changing the name of something makes it seem as if it's different.
You earn your wages. You earn your pension. The idea that someone else makes a 'contribution' to your pension is as misleading as saying your employer is 'making a contribution' to your wallet by paying you.
They're playing word games to mislead you, that's the point of the article. If you don't agree, read the article again.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Back to economics;
Reducing income inequality is the best way to reduce poverty. The more people making good money, the more money it's passed around the economy, which means more sales, more jobs, more prosperity. It's not zero sum, quite the opposite.
Think about it this way; what percentage of their income do rich people need to pay every month to keep the wolf from the door? No matter what the numbers are, it's a much smaller percentage than poor people- which is another way of saying that poor people don't have much discretionary income and therefore cannot participate in the economy.
By contrast, rich people don't need to spend as much, so they withhold from the economy as well... which reduces the total being spent in the economy.
The happy medium- and the maximization of economic activity- is neither extreme, which is exactly the end result of lowering income inequality. This leads to greater economic activity and greater overall prosperity.
Reducing income inequality is the best way to reduce poverty. The more people making good money, the more money it's passed around the economy, which means more sales, more jobs, more prosperity. It's not zero sum, quite the opposite.
Think about it this way; what percentage of their income do rich people need to pay every month to keep the wolf from the door? No matter what the numbers are, it's a much smaller percentage than poor people- which is another way of saying that poor people don't have much discretionary income and therefore cannot participate in the economy.
By contrast, rich people don't need to spend as much, so they withhold from the economy as well... which reduces the total being spent in the economy.
The happy medium- and the maximization of economic activity- is neither extreme, which is exactly the end result of lowering income inequality. This leads to greater economic activity and greater overall prosperity.
The author makes this claim that there is a "trade" for services from public workers to the taxpayer. That never happens in the case of CalPers in Calif. The taxpayer is never directly involved in negotiations. What has happened, is that ill thought out contracts between the unions and state have resulted in "guaranteed" payouts. By definition, the fixed cost of the plan is never negotiated. During economic down turns these returns are unsustainable by employee contributions/investments alone. As a result, "increased taxpayer contributions" are required to maintain them. Sad but true.
It's a word "game" the author is playing. Ironic based on the title of the article.
"Reducing income inequality is the best way to reduce poverty."
What exactly does this mean?
Are you suggesting that the value of a "skill" should have no bearing on the monetary value one is paid?
Are you suggesting a skill of "shit scraper" is of as much value as a skilled "high tech pressure vessel tig welder" and should be paid comparably?
I don't know, "t", doesn't make any sense to me.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ONOEZ, UNIONZ!
if we wanted to hear fox news talking points, we would have turned on fox news rather than visit a cannabis forum on the internet.
nice job at trying to put words in his mouth, but he has never made any claim that there should not be any differentiation of pay based on skill level.
that is another fox news talking point that only dumbasses like you and ginwilly have the temerity to spam endlessly on a fucking cannabis forum.
reducing income equality should probably be read as a livable minimum wage, a more progressive tax code, universal health care, etcetera. these are ways to reduce ncome inequality.
repeating fox news talking points, as you so love to do, only serves to earn you the $0.07 a post you are surely being paid to bombard and spam us with this crap.
shitloaf.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I never said everyone should be paid equally, but a living wage is a reasonable expectation that is now no longer lived up to by employers. They'd rather spend money on elections so their bought and paid for representatives can continue to subsidize major corporations at the expense of wage earners, then spam Fox News with their propaganda.
If living wage legislation were enacted nationwide, our economy would see a massive upswing because more people would participate in with more money.
The opposite hasn't proved true, has it?
If living wage legislation were enacted nationwide, our economy would see a massive upswing because more people would participate in with more money.
The opposite hasn't proved true, has it?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Lol...
"Everyone needs to be compensated fairly"
You've obviously never worked with members of the general public before.
Most people deserve to be shot and buried at sea for their complete and all consuming stupidity, not paid moar for same.
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
Lets trade this instead of using the dollar!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It was an operational observation, or do you think the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers don't matter?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
40 hours per week = food and shelter (plus consumables related to employment)...That's a survival wage.
Add 25% to that to cover a 10% savings rate and 10% "entertainment"...now it's a living wage.
How does that sound for a starting point?
It gets funded the same way everything else does at the Federal level...by being spent into existence.
in case you're wondering.
x +0.25x = 1.25x
10% * 1.25x = 0.125x
0.125x * 2 = .25x = 20% of 1.25x
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Good post, I just wanted to comment on that video, I think the information was poorly represented, it went too fast to put together completely (for drunk me) and didn't clearly make its point
heckler73
Well-Known Member
It wasn't meant to be digested with alcohol. Try again in the morning with coffee.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Not a bad theory, as theories go. In practice, with apologies to Yogi Berra, care to take a stab at a number for the living wage?
Of course, any number is going to invite criticism, just for openers on 'local economy' grounds. It's well known that Washington, D.C. and San Francisco have very high costs of living vs any number of places where the opposite is true.
I'm thinking that just having a national standard for a standard living wage would help reduce this gap- and this in itself would be a desirable outcome. I've seen what high end gated communities foster in terms of divisive/classist attitudes and I'm not a fan. Exclusivity is NOT a good thing!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Even in Colorado, this form of currency has its limits... just sayin'
Similar threads
