Living Wage?

[Gil BullyKatz]

CHICAGO - Brushing aside warnings from Wal-Mart, the City Council approved an ordinance Wednesday that makes Chicago the biggest city in the nation to require big-box retailers to pay a "living wage."


"It's trying to get the largest companies in America to pay decent wages," said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle.

The ordinance passed 35-14 after three hours of impassioned debate.

The measure requires mega-retailers with over $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet to pay workers at least $10 an hour in wages plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. The current minimum wage in Illinois is $6.50 an hour and the federal minimum is $5.15.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and others warned the living wage proposal would drive jobs and desperately needed development from some of the city's poorest neighborhoods and lead giants like Wal-Mart to abandon the city.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio said earlier that if the measure passed, "We'd redirect our focus on our suburban strategy and see how we could better serve our city of Chicago residents from suburban Chicagoland."

Chicago has been at the center of the debate about the wages at big retailers ever since the city's rejection of a proposal by Wal-Mart to open a store on the South Side prompted the company to open a store just outside the city limits.

The first Wal-Mart in Chicago itself is set to open in September, and the Bentonville, Ark.-based company has more than 40 other stores within 50 miles of the city.

Wal-Mart said that its average hourly wage is almost $11 an hour in the Chicago area and that the lowest wage that will be paid at the new West Side store will be $7.25 an hour

[Lincoln]

:thumbup:

[5-90]

All well and good, but ultimately futile.

Every time the 'minimum wage' goes up, the costs of production are likewise driven upwards, and everyone who makes "scale" also demands more money, which drives up the costs of skilled labour, transportation, and myriad other things.

It's not a bad thing, per se, that Wally World is having their wages driven up - but that just means they'll end up paying less for products in order to keep their prices down, or that they'll end up raising prices in response.

The basic problem facing us isn't so much being paid a "living wage" (although it may help in the short term,) the problem is the tax burden imposed upon everyone. Figure a good third of the money we make we never reallly see - because it gets skimmed right off the top before we get to look at it!

Now, I'm not saying that taxes should not be paid, but there are programmes we should pay for and programmes we should not pay for...

We should pay for...
Vital public services (fire/police)
Public and National Defense (military)
Public "Servants" (this is a grey area. We probably should pay congresscritters and politicans - but they do make too much as it stands, and figure they effectively make another 3x their wages in "job benefits" - like the franking privilege, job-related travel, and the like. That's assuming they don't abuse their privileges...)

We should not pay for...
Welfare. Sorry, but forcing us to support a segment of the population that effectively doesn't give a damn is just plain robbery. Not "burglary" - where things are taken by stealth and opportunity - but "robbery" - where things are taken by force or duress. I've got mixed feelings about welfare, but it sure as Hell needs a reform - no-one should be able to live on welfare for the rest of their lives...
Mid-level government functionaries. The people that actually do the work should certainly get paid, and I suppose we should pay the people at the top. However, once an individual seems to rise above direct responsibility and is only concerned with increasing the size of his petty fiefdom, he should be first in line when the RIF list comes around...
Subsidies. I've got nothing against people trying to make a useful amount of money - but I'd sooner see people thinking that they have a right to make a profit unmolested, not just a right to a profit. It's like the electrical people and the gasoline people - we're their money, and they know it. Venezuela is paying something like $0.25/gallon for fuel, and the UAE just hit $1.40. I know, Europe is paying something like $6 per gallon - but that's Europe, and it's a lot easier to get around on public transit due to the fuel taxes (not all of them are applied to transportation infrastructure, but more than they are here...)

Should we/shouldn't we pay for these?
Medicare. I can see some utility here, but there are doctors that view it as a "cash cow," and that's why Medicare fraud has become such a problem. Negotiate universal rates for medical care (if you expect me to believe there's not markup in the medical field, keep dreaming. I was assessed a $48K bill for a four-day hospital say - granted, it was in Neuro ICU, but they didn't have to do anything but give me morphine every few hours and monitor vitals. Hmm...)
Social Security. Here's a problem - the system wasn't supposes to last more than five years (seventy years ago!) and we're wondering why it's "broke." The SSAN wasn't supposed to be used as an identifying number - but you see what's happened there. The Social Security Act was originally passed as a stopgap measure by FDR during the Great Depression, and was supposed to be temporary. I think it would be illustrative to see just how this "welfare state act" became permanent - at least you generally have to pay IN to SS before you can get anything OUT of it (although I wonder sometimes...)
Welfare, in general. I'll be the first to admit that, sometimes, people need a litlte help getting back on their feet (and I find it midly ironic that the same people have to help you get back up that knocked you down in the first place... but we have to fund it. Hmm...) However, welfare should be temporary, should be a fixed amount (makes you want to get off of it,) and we should get something back for the money - whether it's people going to school so they can get jobs, or actually doing public works projects that require unskilled labour.

I've got more ideas, but I don't seem to think too clearly when I'm on the subject of "governmental reform," thus, the need to do a series of monographs when I get my mind right....

5-90

[Ironmen77]

I think the goverment should mandate that everyone should make................
$100,000 per year that would show those evil companies.

Goverment telling private companies what wages they will pay. Is not freedom, it's facism. Love or hate Wal-Mart they are a publicly held company not a branch of the goverment. What or whom will be next? Your company?

[5-90]

My usual argument isn't "raise the minimum wage" - it's "lower the tax rates."

I think it will be found that the dollar is worth a lot more when such a large bite isn't taken out of it. The only people that win when MW goes up are the people who collect the taxes - why do you think they sugarcoat it so much?

5-90

[Gil BullyKatz]

that would show those evil companies.


Speaking of evil companies....

Exxon rakes in $10 billion in profit while we pay $3.50 a gallon.

:rattle:

[Ironmen77]

Speaking of evil companies....

Exxon rakes in $10 billion in profit while we pay $3.50 a gallon.

:rattle:

There ya go, lets set the price of gas at $1.50 a gallon. Then set Exxon's profits not to go over 1 billion.
Then we can go after the banks they have a higher profit margin than "Evil Oil". Then the medical profession. How about that damn food industry, milk is too high. Let's get them all.

[DrMoab]

The United states became a Socialist country quite a few years ago.

Some people who want everything handed to them will never understand how stupid this is.

If you don't want to make minimum wage...don't work at wal-mart. If you can't find a better job then that...I guess you don't deserve anymore then you get.

[woody]

good points need spaces between them

Just MHO

[Rev Den]

Speaking of evil companies....

Exxon rakes in $10 billion in profit while we pay $3.50 a gallon.

:rattle:

Sorry Gil.

After this week I have determined that the price of gas has NO EFFECT on how much people travel. Fawking more low life dirtballs with POS cars on long distance vacations this season then last.

I fawking hate summer....please make it stop.

Rev

[dizzymac]

Medicare does need to be overhauled...the abuse is unbelievable. I used to drive a lady to a "fat" doctor in Boston. She was morbidaly obese so she had to see a specialist. The fare for the round trip was $128 which Medi-C paid (you and I). I have no idea what her Dr. appt. cost but I know it wasn't cheap.
I/we would bring her week after week to Boston. One week she would lose 3 pounds and the next, gain it back. This went on for over three years that I know of.
Now admittedly she did need help and I don't have a prob. with that, but I did have a prob. with her ALWAYS wanting to stop at BK on the way home for a couple of whoppers,one for now and one for later.
I feel someone should have caught this, there was no appreciable weight loss over the years, yet our tax dollars were still paying for a program that was/is obviously not working.
There were many, many more cases like this one.

[Gil BullyKatz]

Only reason I'm :rattle: ...

Is because:

a) I don't own any stock in oil companies

b) am not employed as a high level exec at Exxon

c) Skanky only gets 8-10mpg

d) they don't have to rub salt in the wound

:D

[Ironmen77]

Exxon: Spent 88 billion dollars.

Exxon: Made 99 billion dollars.

Of that profit 5 billion went back into exploration.

8 billion was paid to shareholders.

Thats 13 billion!

It's cashflow. Re-invest to produce more.

The goverment gets $0.42 per gallon and they don't produce a drop of gas.

[Ramsey]

All well and good, but ultimately futile.

Every time the 'minimum wage' goes up, the costs of production are likewise driven upwards, and everyone who makes "scale" also demands more money, which drives up the costs of skilled labour, transportation, and myriad other things.

It's not a bad thing, per se, that Wally World is having their wages driven up - but that just means they'll end up paying less for products in order to keep their prices down, or that they'll end up raising prices in response.

The basic problem facing us isn't so much being paid a "living wage" (although it may help in the short term,) the problem is the tax burden imposed upon everyone. Figure a good third of the money we make we never reallly see - because it gets skimmed right off the top before we get to look at it!

Now, I'm not saying that taxes should not be paid, but there are programmes we should pay for and programmes we should not pay for...

We should pay for...
Vital public services (fire/police)
Public and National Defense (military)
Public "Servants" (this is a grey area. We probably should pay congresscritters and politicans - but they do make too much as it stands, and figure they effectively make another 3x their wages in "job benefits" - like the franking privilege, job-related travel, and the like. That's assuming they don't abuse their privileges...)

We should not pay for...
Welfare. Sorry, but forcing us to support a segment of the population that effectively doesn't give a damn is just plain robbery. Not "burglary" - where things are taken by stealth and opportunity - but "robbery" - where things are taken by force or duress. I've got mixed feelings about welfare, but it sure as Hell needs a reform - no-one should be able to live on welfare for the rest of their lives...
Mid-level government functionaries. The people that actually do the work should certainly get paid, and I suppose we should pay the people at the top. However, once an individual seems to rise above direct responsibility and is only concerned with increasing the size of his petty fiefdom, he should be first in line when the RIF list comes around...
Subsidies. I've got nothing against people trying to make a useful amount of money - but I'd sooner see people thinking that they have a right to make a profit unmolested, not just a right to a profit. It's like the electrical people and the gasoline people - we're their money, and they know it. Venezuela is paying something like $0.25/gallon for fuel, and the UAE just hit $1.40. I know, Europe is paying something like $6 per gallon - but that's Europe, and it's a lot easier to get around on public transit due to the fuel taxes (not all of them are applied to transportation infrastructure, but more than they are here...)

Should we/shouldn't we pay for these?
Medicare. I can see some utility here, but there are doctors that view it as a "cash cow," and that's why Medicare fraud has become such a problem. Negotiate universal rates for medical care (if you expect me to believe there's not markup in the medical field, keep dreaming. I was assessed a $48K bill for a four-day hospital say - granted, it was in Neuro ICU, but they didn't have to do anything but give me morphine every few hours and monitor vitals. Hmm...)
Social Security. Here's a problem - the system wasn't supposes to last more than five years (seventy years ago!) and we're wondering why it's "broke." The SSAN wasn't supposed to be used as an identifying number - but you see what's happened there. The Social Security Act was originally passed as a stopgap measure by FDR during the Great Depression, and was supposed to be temporary. I think it would be illustrative to see just how this "welfare state act" became permanent - at least you generally have to pay IN to SS before you can get anything OUT of it (although I wonder sometimes...)
Welfare, in general. I'll be the first to admit that, sometimes, people need a litlte help getting back on their feet (and I find it midly ironic that the same people have to help you get back up that knocked you down in the first place... but we have to fund it. Hmm...) However, welfare should be temporary, should be a fixed amount (makes you want to get off of it,) and we should get something back for the money - whether it's people going to school so they can get jobs, or actually doing public works projects that require unskilled labour.

I've got more ideas, but I don't seem to think too clearly when I'm on the subject of "governmental reform," thus, the need to do a series of monographs when I get my mind right....

5-90


Your posts are entirely too long.

[SBrad001]

My usual argument isn't "raise the minimum wage" - it's "lower the tax rates."

I think it will be found that the dollar is worth a lot more when such a large bite isn't taken out of it. The only people that win when MW goes up are the people who collect the taxes - why do you think they sugarcoat it so much?

5-90

I think this is partially flawed. Those that are only making minimum wage don't pay taxes, and generally are refunded more money that what is taken out for taxes to begin with. So in essences our goverment subsidizes lower working wages for larger corporations, where if a higher 'living' wage was instituted, tax revenue would increase for the government. This in turn could be used to lower business taxes and stimulate economic growth.

[IMORTL]

Your posts are entirely too long.

for people with small brains...

I am a converted 5-90 disiple...

[ECKSJAY]

for people with small brains...

I am a converted 5-90 disiple...

I, on the other hand, think for myself. :)

[OT]

for people with small brains...

I am a converted 5-90 disiple...
You're a disciple of 5-90, because of people with small brains?:confused:


Too bad his eloquence and articulation doesn't spill over to his followers......

[bjoehandley]

I'm suprised it took almost 2 whole days for the first post.........
If I remember right, weren't the main proponents Clergy and Unions.
I also wonder if WM will now built store just out of city limits or with a sales floor of "only" 89,500 sq ft.

Your posts are entirely too long.

Should try reading them on a cell phone, especially after some bozo decides to quote the whole damn thing and responds with a whole 6 letters:rattle:

[Gil BullyKatz]

I also wonder if WM will now built store just out of city limits or with a sales floor of "only" 89,500 sq ft.

I thought they already did...

Don't know where tho...

Walworld is too upscale for me...

I still shop at K-Mart and the dollar store.

:D

[5-90]

I think this is partially flawed. Those that are only making minimum wage don't pay taxes, and generally are refunded more money that what is taken out for taxes to begin with. So in essences our goverment subsidizes lower working wages for larger corporations, where if a higher 'living' wage was instituted, tax revenue would increase for the government. This in turn could be used to lower business taxes and stimulate economic growth.

Rather true - but the idea here is to also allow the dwindling "middle class" to get a foothold as well - the so-called "working poor."

I'm not out to make everyone rich - there are some people who just don't want it. I've never wanted to get rich, just be comfortable doing something that makes me happy. However, this nation is rapidly being divided into the exceedingly rich and the people working like mad just to tread water (probably because the middle class supports the lower class,) and there's something basically wrong with that. It's not enough that we have to support the "working incompetent" (government functionaries - not the people doing actual work!) but we've got to prop up people who either can't or won't get useful jobs, or people who never got the training they'd need to get jobs (which would get me started on public education - subject for another time...)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the time for unions has come and (largely) gone, and government is getting out of control. What do you propose we do to stop it?

5-90

[Gil BullyKatz]

What do you propose we do to stop it?

5-90


Make the richest contribute on a level equally proportionate to what us working joe's contribute...

make govt. programs to help the "needy" damn near impossible to take advantage of...

Instead of just giving out handouts, the govt. should encourage and only help those of the public that truly want and demonstrate that they are contributing members of society and not leeches.

Want public aid?

Here's a broom-go sweep town square

Want food stamps but can't work because you've got kids to take of?-here's a govt.sponsored daycare where you can take care of your kids and others who work.

It's true...

The middle class is carrying the brunt of all our social programs while the rich sit back and enjoy juicy tax breaks...

everyone needs to carry their own weight...

either through their own labor...

or their checkbook.

[5-90]

Intriguing - and somewhat in line with ideas I've had as well...

Bring about a "flat tax" - and if it doesn't bring enough in, start cutting on people who don't actually do useful work (functionaries, congresscritters, and the like. Most of them are hideously overpaid anyhow.)

Make welfare difficult to get, put a cap on it (you collect according to the kids you have at the time. If you have another, you get to figure out how to pay for it...) Reinstate both the "Pauper's Oath" (if you're on welfare, you don't get to vote. Want to vote? Get off the dole...) and a variation of Works Progress - so we get something back for the money we're paying out. Even if it's just pushing an idiot stick, there's always something that wants doing...

"Everyone needs to carry their own weight" - something I've been trying to do for years. If it weren't for being "overqualified and undereducated," it wouldn't be such a problem. So, my wife and I decided that I'd take a few years off and stack up degrees, and take care of the "undereducated" part. Can't really do anything about "overqualified," but there are a number of "unqualified" people running about, aren't there...?

5-90

[flexjay87]

as a pecentage, the more you make the more you pay in taxes, right? so a lot of families who have incomes of approx. 35k or less don't pay any taxes do they?

[Gil BullyKatz]

as a pecentage, the more you make the more you pay in taxes, right? so a lot of families who have incomes of approx. 35k or less don't pay any taxes do they?

wrong.

percentage wise the system sucks...

look into "tax brackets"

[5-90]

as a pecentage, the more you make the more you pay in taxes, right? so a lot of families who have incomes of approx. 35k or less don't pay any taxes do they?

More or less true - but there are "tax advantages" that are not available to the family making $35K, but would be to a family making $350K - which makes it entirely possible for the higher-end income to pay less.

A "flat tax" would be exactly that - pay out a flat rate - say, 10% of your income - with no mechanism for deductions, exemptions, or any-damn-thing else. You get 10% taken right out of your paycheque, but you don't have to file a return, because 10% is all the government gets - no more, and no less.

States can follow the lead of the Feds, only with a 3-5% cut (since they're smaller.) Ditto eliminating state tax returns.

This would be good because you don't need people to audit us anymore, don't need to have our returns checked, and would therefore be able to get rid of abour 95% of the manning for the various state tax boards and the IRS (let them go work for a living...) Use this example to cut the quasi-fiefdoms we've got elsewhere in government, and that would further reduce spending.

Significant welfare reforms would help - at all levels - and, while the ideas here wouldn't be a panacea, they'd be a damn good start!

Discuss.

5-90

[RCman]

After reading 5-90's posts I think he's got it right.

I'm sick of seeing people on welfare and have a lot of stuff handed to them. Sure there may be people that honestly do need the food stamps, WIC, etc. However the majority of them do not.

I don't get the people who make the state pay for childcare from 7am-5pm while they sit at home and ''look for a job'' while collecting in on their state supported lives. If you can't afford to have children, don't. If the state (and myself) is paying for your child to eat, please don't have any more fun and start raising another!

Another thing that gets me is the people that ''scam the system''. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone in line pay for their groceries with food stamps and then take out a wade of twentys to pay for the taxable items only to soon after walk out to their $30-$50 thousand dollar cars. It just doesn't make sence.

[5-90]

After reading 5-90's posts I think he's got it right.

I'm sick of seeing people on welfare and have a lot of stuff handed to them. Sure there may be people that honestly do need the food stamps, WIC, etc. However the majority of them do not.

I don't get the people who make the state pay for childcare from 7am-5pm while they sit at home and ''look for a job'' while collecting in on their state supported lives. If you can't afford to have children, don't. If the state (and myself) is paying for your child to eat, please don't have any more fun and start raising another!

Another thing that gets me is the people that ''scam the system''. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone in line pay for their groceries with food stamps and then take out a wade of twentys to pay for the taxable items only to soon after walk out to their $30-$50 thousand dollar cars. It just doesn't make sence.


Oh, the stories I could tell...

I have nothing against Worker's Compensation - if you're genuinely injured on the job, it's the employer's look-out to take care of you. I have problems with the idea of someone collecting multiple WC claims - I've put a couple of those people in jail.

Unemployment insurance? I suppose - but I've never been able to collect (I'm white, and I live in CA. Go figure...) At least that one's on a time limit.
Employers could stand to be a little less picky - like I'd said, I've been told I'm "overqualified and undereducated" - huh? Since when do education have anything at all to do with qualifications - if I can do the job, get out of my way and let me do it! I can't help the fact that I came out of public schools a generation ago, and therefore learned something.

Welfare? Sure - but either public works or schooling as a condition of acceptance (in addition to the Pauper's Oath,) perhaps a two-year limit on what you get, and you get a SET amount once you start to collect. No more having more kids to get more money. If you, for some reason, go on welfare long-term, then tubal ligation and vasectomies are an option - no reason to support more of you.

Seems to me there are numbers on the food stamps, no? Perhaps cashiers should mark them when they get someone with the "wad of twenties" (I've seen a few of these as well...) and have them looked at rather strongly. I've seen it happen more than a few times where the food stamps are brought out to pay for "foodstuffs," and then the cash comes out for beer, booze, and smokes. Sometimes for more than the food itself...

5-90

[Ramsey]

for people with small brains...

I am a converted 5-90 disiple...
Maybe I dont want to read half a page of someones rant, unless maybe it was Dennis Miller. Disciples are for jews:D

[5-90]

Maybe I dont want to read half a page of someones rant, unless maybe it was Dennis Miller. Disciples are for jews:D

Force of long-standing habit. One of the most common questions on any exam I took in school ('way back when, they don't seem to do this much anymore...) was "Why?"

You could get docked entirely for the right answer, if you didn't provide supporting logic. You could get partial credit for a wrong answer, by following good logic, but starting with a flawed premise. As a result, I have since developed the habit of explaining myself. Ask me how to fix something, and I'll tell you what will work - and why - and what won't work - and why not. You'll probably end up learning something in spite of yourself...

I've just never really stopped explaining myself - makes it easier to prove when someone else is wrong about something, and it makes it easier for me to be proven wrong (since you can usually point out the flawed premise, and we can work forward from there...)

5-90

[Ramsey]

:doh:

[OT]

:doh:
X2.

[Ironmen77]

wrong.

percentage wise the system sucks...

look into "tax brackets"


http://i7.tinypic.com/21czh3q.gif

IRS figures for 2003.

Revenue paid in.

Rich are paying more than their share.

[OT]

Do you have a chart that shows what percentage of their income the upper, middle, and lower classes paid in?

[TC]

The richest of Americans pay more than their fair share in taxes. It's the poor who don't contribute, in more ways than just taxes. I feel ALL who work should pay taxes, after all those who pay the least generally benefit the most from the government. There's no reason they should be riding along on the backs of those who work and have the most confiscated from their paychecks every week. If you're not paying into the system you don't have a stake in America, for that matter if yer not contributing you shouldn't be allowed to vote on income tax issues either. It doesn't seem right to be able to vote on an increase in taxes that only others will be forced to pay.
People who are either mentally or physically unable to work would be exempt, there would be some abuse of this but theres nothing new about that... a whole other topic.
Tax the poor,
Feed the rich,
'til there are no Poor no more...:D

[Ironmen77]

Do you have a chart that shows what percentage of their income the upper, middle, and lower classes paid in?



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf


page 16,17,18 etc.

[5-90]

The richest of Americans pay more than their fair share in taxes. It's the poor who don't contribute, in more ways than just taxes. I feel ALL who work should pay taxes, after all those who pay the least generally benefit the most from the government. There's no reason they should be riding along on the backs of those who work and have the most confiscated from their paychecks every week. If you're not paying into the system you don't have a stake in America, for that matter if yer not contributing you shouldn't be allowed to vote on income tax issues either. It doesn't seem right to be able to vote on an increase in taxes that only others will be forced to pay.
People who are either mentally or physically unable to work would be exempt, there would be some abuse of this but theres nothing new about that... a whole other topic.
Tax the poor,
Feed the rich,
'til there are no Poor no more...:D


Note that at no time did I say that taxes should not be paid. However, what I have said over and over again, is that most of the money going in (tax revenues) are being misspent on any number of things (start with congresscriters, welfare, not paying off the trade deficit or the national debt - take your pick.)

I am therefore inclined to think that Congress would be rather more parsimonius with their money if they knew they weren't going to get so much of it.

Also, I agree with the point made after the pies popped up - and you know the IRS is going to spin the Hell out of their figure. I'd like to see comparisons of absolute tax dollars paid by income bracket both as a percentage of governmental income and as a percentage of individual compensation. That would probably be enlightening...

Thus, the idea of either a "flat tax" or a "National Retail Sales Tax" - the "Flat tax" would be a dead flat percentage of gross income, with no need to fill out returns and deductions - since they would be shot up entirely once the flat tax went into effect.

The NRST would be a bit more fair - because it would give us a small control over how much we pay. You don't pay taxes on the money until you spend it, and it would be administeres in a similar manner to state sales taxes - viz, not assessed against foodstuffs and medications, but charged on everything else. If you don't want to pay so much in taxes, don't spend so much.

Either system would, I'm sure, be more fair than what we've got now. Also, you'd see a lot of "tax cheaing" going away - with a flat tax, you'd pay out that flat percentage and that's it. No return to file, no deductions to take advantage of - 10% and your tithes are paid.

Similar would be the NRST - don't want to pay a lot of taxes? Save your money. You wouldn't get taxed against savings and interest - simply because your taxes aren't assessed until you spend your money.

Discuss.

5-90

[Ironmen77]

5-90, either of these would be great , with sales tax best. The only way any reform takes place is pressure from voters. The only thing politicans fear is losing their job. Having said that, once there are more people in the country that get back more than they pay in. Meaningful tax reform will be dead forever.

[McDonnie91]

Wouldn't the idea of no taxes till you spend your money encourage people to sit on their money and couldn't that hurt the economy in the long run also I don't think that the Pauper's Oath would really stimulate the poor to work seeing as many don't bother voting anyways... just a thought

[5-90]

Wouldn't the idea of no taxes till you spend your money encourage people to sit on their money and couldn't that hurt the economy in the long run also I don't think that the Pauper's Oath would really stimulate the poor to work seeing as many don't bother voting anyways... just a thought

Not necessarily - since you still have to buy consumer goods (closting and raw materials for them, household goods, automotive goods, and suchlike) - but you'd get some more control over how much you give the government.

The Pauper's Oath may not be a fully effective solution in and of itself either - but the fall of Rome was attributed to "bread and circuses" - "The people will continue to vote themselve bread and circuses until there are neither bread nor circuses." Frankly, I'm a bit suspect of the current "warm body" voting requirements - the idea that having a body temperature at or near 37*C can make you an effective decision-maker is foolhardy. For an alternate idea, read "The Curious Republic of Gondour" by Mark Twain... I think it's available from Project Gutenberg for free.

5-90

[TC]

Several things would be on my "dream" list; elections would be in April, during tax season. A flat tax is sounding like one of the better options I've heard laid out, gotta be better than what we've got now. Polititions would follow the same laws and rules as the rest of us. Those are a few off the top of my head.
During a major change to the tax code there would be a period of adjustment, I imagime as people became more and more informed of how things worked things would start running along pretty quickly.
Like I said,"Dreamin'".

[TC]

Politicians that is...

[McDonnie91]

The ideas in The Curious Rebublic of Gondour are great to bad so many would consider it descrimination to bad the biggest threat to america are its citizans

[ECKSJAY]

to bad the biggest threat to america are its citizans

Speak for yourself there, spanky.

[BOB]

I beleive minimum wage really has no effect on most low wage workers.
Minimum wage usually only last during a probationary period. 60 or 90 days. then you get a raise or get booted. If this is true, I belive a higher minimum wage will only get perpetuated longer. Rather than a 60-90 day probationary period. It'll go to six months. Then when employers look for tax breaks, the Democrats call them greedy.

...BOB