• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is minimum wage a lot?

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
It's up over 17 trillion, and the national debt has nothing to do with income redistribution. Wealth is neither created nor destroyed, it's just moving from one pot to another.

In other words, it's not as if letting the millionaires and billionaires keep that extra 20 percent is going to pay down any of the national debt.

Yet you believe there are piles of money lying around to allow your income redistribution philosophy of life.

How grand for you.
 
It's a good heart that helps those in need. Those who follow Christ often do that very thing through their tithes and offerings. Or they volunteer their time to help others as it is a command of Jesus to his followers. However, Jesus did not command the governments the responsibility to care for the poor and downtrodden but his followers personally. And that is the rub. One way is done freely. The other through government is forced. Jesus also likes a joyful giver. Not too many folks I know are joyful being forced to pay for benefits of others when they already give to the needy. Jesus also taught personal responsibility for one's choices in life. Forgiveness is freely given, but that doesn't negate the consequences. The Scriptures tell us those not willing to work don't deserve to eat. Those who have been personally responsible should not be penalized for those who have not. And when the government forces them, it amounts to stealing.

You are right that Jesus likes the joyful giver. It is up to every person to give and what he decides to give is between him and God.

In America, we are unique because every citizen has the opportunity to wear two hats. First, everyone is an individual, and we have the ability to donate our time and money as individuals as you have said.

The second hat we put on is as governors of this country. Through our votes, we actually steer the direction our government goes in. Therefore, we have a responsibility to think for ourselves as individuals, but at the same time we have a responsibility to think as stewards of America, because the choices we make at the polls are what shapes this country.

As an individual, I give to charity.

As a voter and an American, I feel I have a responsibility to my fellow Americans. I recognize that as charitable as Americans are, the poor are not getting enough to where they can truly take part in society. Therefore, I think redistribution at a government level in the form of taxes is in the best interest of the country.

The government has the right to tax, it's not stealing. If it were, we wouldn't have been commanded to render unto caesar. The government is supposed to to what is best for the people, by the people. In so doing, we entrust it with the ability to levy taxes.
 
Yet you believe there are piles of money lying around to allow your income redistribution philosophy of life.

How grand for you.

Why has the meme "income redistribution" become so very popular lately? Could it be *gasp* that it is yet another diversion to not only keep people divided, but it is being used by this administration to cover up the stark fact that after five years, nothing much has been accomplished in getting people back to work? Where is someone like FDR?...he handled worse problems than this, and everyone knows it! I'm not a Democrat, but I have great admiration for his handling of the problems he faced! He didn't do everything right, because he was human, but on this issue, he sure did, and the people loved him for it!

Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:
 
First, I didn't say they shouldn't be free to trade with others.

Second, what I was referring to was the need to have our priorities straight. Human beings are more important than the almighty dollar.

But human beings suffer when we're and/or they're stupid about the almighty dollar. So they go hand in hand.

We have a responsibility to take care of the poor.

Being poor doesn't make them helpless like a child in need of our care. People can be poor and independent. Frankly I find your compulsion to try to make society care for the poor just because they don't own as much as you to be quite demeaning.

They don't take kids away because their parent's income is too low.

I'm aware, but I suspect a lot of the people who are terrible enough to their children to have them taken away because of abuse and neglect... tend to have low income, generally speaking. All I've said in this thread on the topic of having children and raising families is that people who can't do it (for one or more reasons) generally shouldn't. Why people react adversely to this comment is bizarre.
 
Yet you believe there are piles of money lying around to allow your income redistribution philosophy of life.

How grand for you.

According to the US department of commerce, americans bring in 13.4 trillion dollars per year in wages. According to the Brookings Institute, the top 1% of earners make a 25 percent of that total.

So approximately 3 million Americans earn 3.35 trillion dollars a year.
 
Not quite sure how to say this without being rude, but I'm surprised you don't make a lot more than you do because you're clearly very intelligent.

I don't make minimum wage. I make $8.25 an hour. I used to make $8.00 an hour but I got a raise because of my intelligence. This is 2014. Things are different. I used to make much much more back in 2010. Things are different now.
 
According to the US department of commerce, americans bring in 13.4 trillion dollars per year in wages. According to the Brookings Institute, the top 1% of earners make a 25 percent of that total.

So approximately 3 million Americans earn 3.35 trillion dollars a year.

So what?

All this means that you need to contribute more.

The US will not accept your wish of Socialism.
 
The irony is that we're so unimaginably wealthy in this country that we could easily eliminate poverty altogether and nobody would have to sell off all their belongings or come anywhere close to doing that.

It will never happen, though.

All that would happen is that a new level of what is considered poverty would be set. In addition, who gets to decide how the efforts, goods and services of others would be given to those that did not earn them in order to temporarily end poverty?? Reality is that there will always be a segment of society which is comfortable to live in poverty if it means not having to work. I have relatives that are perfectly happy living on state welfare, social security and food banks as long as they have enough to drink on. What would the strategy look like to fix that?
We need to change how we try to combat poverty because, so far, we have blown billions trying to solve it and the numbers have remained the same since Johnson declared "war" poverty.
 
Why has the meme "income redistribution" become so very popular lately? Could it be *gasp* that it is yet another diversion to not only keep people divided, but it is being used by this administration to cover up the stark fact that after five years, nothing much has been accomplished in getting people back to work? Where is someone like FDR?...he handled worse problems than this, and everyone knows it! I'm not a Democrat, but I have great admiration for his handling of the problems he faced! He didn't do everything right, because he was human, but on this issue, he sure did, and the people loved him for it!

Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:

Hello, my friend.

Most folks are clueless on how our economy really operates, and make moronic statements about realigning income so everyone is the same.

They have no understanding of how a profit based business operates.

No profit = no businesses.

Of course, these morons have never actually started and run a business of their own.....
 
All that would happen is that a new level of what is considered poverty would be set. In addition, who gets to decide how the efforts, goods and services of others would be given to those that did not earn them in order to temporarily end poverty?? Reality is that there will always be a segment of society which is comfortable to live in poverty if it means not having to work. I have relatives that are perfectly happy living on state welfare, social security and food banks as long as they have enough to drink on. What would the strategy look like to fix that?
We need to change how we try to combat poverty because, so far, we have blown billions trying to solve it and the numbers have remained the same since Johnson declared "war" poverty.

But the level would be at a more humane place. There are people in this country living hand to mouth, literally. That isn't right.

As to who gets to decide.... the government we elect has that right.
 
So what?

All this means that you need to contribute more.

The US will not accept your wish of Socialism.

What do you mean I need to contribute more? I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm advocating for a managed capitalism.
 
However, Jesus did not command the governments the responsibility to care for the poor and downtrodden but his followers personally.

Perhaps Jesus didn't but Old Testament law forbade farmers for harvesting the corners of their field and the gleaning of their fields. This was supposed to be left for the poor and the illegal Mexicans. (I'm paraphrasing a bit but it's the same sentiment.) This is exactly the spirit of our current food stamp program. The whole theme of the prophets in the Old Testament was critical of Israel because of their unwillingness to care for the poor and to enforce crime. This is why most Jews are liberal leaning in their politics. They know that a society will result in violence and chaos when the poor are ignored.

vesper said:
Jesus also taught personal responsibility for one's choices in life.

Really? The homeless guy that roamed around and took the ancient form of food stamps?

vesper said:
The Scriptures tell us those not willing to work don't deserve to eat.

My favorite misquoted scripture in the Bible. Read the whole chapter.

vesper said:
And when the government forces them, it amounts to stealing.

The government cannot steal what belongs to them. Our money supply is characterized as Federal Reserve Notes. Dollars must be paid back to the Federal Reserve. In the 1860's and the 1890's the Income Tax was deemed unconstitutional. It is no longer unconstitutional. The government doesn't give away Gold Certificates or Silver Certificates any more. They now loan Federal Reserve Notes to banks. The banks loan these Federal Reserve Notes to businesses and individuals. You have to pay these back. In the meantime, use them as currency. Keep them flowing around. You don't want to be caught holding the bag.
 
What do you mean I need to contribute more? I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm advocating for a managed capitalism.

And you can manage your new idea with your own money - there is a novel idea!

Yes you are arguing for socialism - reallocating income.

Usually this philosophy operates under dictatorships, as history has shown us.
 
Minimum wage should be nearly triple what it is today.

No family should have a household income below $40,000 / yr.

Current minimum wage for a single earner is about $15,000 / yr at a 40 hour workweek.

So boom, minimum wage earns 40,000 a year for folding towels in a gym. Then what? Now everyone who was getting what a fry cook makes now will want their pay increased to reflect the work they do in comparison. "Poof" you have now made $40000 the new poverty level and while the market catches up with your new minimum wage, businesses fold and people lose their jobs while the rest try to rebuild and restructure in order to maintain a semblance of profit. This also means that retirees are somehow going to have to come to terms with $15 dollar burgers, $12 gas, and Social Security checks that would hardly cover the monthly electricity bill....
 
I live in the SF Bay Area, 4 people making minimum wage could afford to live in a one bedroom apartment in a reasonably safe area if they had no car and all utilities included.
 
And you can manage your new idea with your own money - there is a novel idea!

Yes you are arguing for socialism - reallocating income.

Usually this philosophy operates under dictatorships, as history has shown us.

We already have income taxes. All I'm saying is bump the rate up for the top earners a bit more than it is now.
 
You are right that Jesus likes the joyful giver. It is up to every person to give and what he decides to give is between him and God.

In America, we are unique because every citizen has the opportunity to wear two hats. First, everyone is an individual, and we have the ability to donate our time and money as individuals as you have said.

The second hat we put on is as governors of this country. Through our votes, we actually steer the direction our government goes in. Therefore, we have a responsibility to think for ourselves as individuals, but at the same time we have a responsibility to think as stewards of America, because the choices we make at the polls are what shapes this country.

As an individual, I give to charity.

As a voter and an American, I feel I have a responsibility to my fellow Americans. I recognize that as charitable as Americans are, the poor are not getting enough to where they can truly take part in society. Therefore, I think redistribution at a government level in the form of taxes is in the best interest of the country.

The government has the right to tax, it's not stealing. If it were, we wouldn't have been commanded to render unto caesar. The government is supposed to to what is best for the people, by the people. In so doing, we entrust it with the ability to levy taxes.

We will have to agree to disagree on the redistribution of wealth. For no other reason but decency, I support a limited safety net for those who are destitute and it should be the state's responsibility which I believe all welfare programs should be handled/set up in every individual state and supported with the tax dollars of those within that state. Definitely nothing like the one we now have that is so bloated with programs at the federal level. I do not feel responsibility to redistribute wealth simply because others have less. But I do support getting government out of the way so the creation of jobs is stimulated where more people have an opportunity to earn their own wealth. Most of our poor are single moms. But when you add up all the bennies they get, they really aren't so poor. Today with the plethora of welfare programs a single mother with two kids can work at a part time job at minimum wage and collect benefits that exceed the wages of a married couple both working at median income with a couple of kids and do not qualify for government aid. When a government provides so many benefits it encourages poor choices with no personal responsibilities for those choices and takes away the incentive to be all one can. So providing more benefits isn't doing folks any favors. I don't think it is asking too much for every able bodied person to be earning their own way and take personal responsibility for their own choices in life.
 
So boom, minimum wage earns 40,000 a year for folding towels in a gym. Then what? Now everyone who was getting what a fry cook makes now will want their pay increased to reflect the work they do in comparison. "Poof" you have now made $40000 the new poverty level and while the market catches up with your new minimum wage, businesses fold and people lose their jobs while the rest try to rebuild and restructure in order to maintain a semblance of profit. This also means that retirees are somehow going to have to come to terms with $15 dollar burgers, $12 gas, and Social Security checks that would hardly cover the monthly electricity bill....

This looks like a slippery slope argument to me. I'm not buying it. Just because you raise the minimum wage doesn't mean everyone else gets a raise from their employers.
 
But the level would be at a more humane place. There are people in this country living hand to mouth, literally. That isn't right.

As to who gets to decide.... the government we elect has that right.

You missed the point. If minimum wage were raised to that level, in a short amount of time, $40000 would only buy as much as minimum wage does now. You didn't do anything but score political votes and shift numbers. Why should someone folding towels in a gym earn as much as say, a network analyst or medical technician? You don't think they would demand they be paid at a level commensurate to their skill?
 
We already have income taxes. All I'm saying is bump the rate up for the top earners a bit more than it is now.

Same end - wrong again.

You want it, you fund it.

I'll bet that you could even start your own website where rich folks can donate to others.

Let me know how that goes, or are you too lazy to do that also?

Leave the rest of us out of your games.
 
You missed the point. If minimum wage were raised to that level, in a short amount of time, $40000 would only buy as much as minimum wage does now.

I disagree with this part (above), can you please explain your thinking behind it?
 
Same end - wrong again.

You want it, you fund it.

I'll bet that you could even start your own website where rich folks can donate to others.

Let me know how that goes, or are you too lazy to do that also?

Leave the rest of us out of your games.


I'm not the government. You're asking me to do the government's job.
 
No, it's called being humane. We have the money, so we have the responsibility to look out for the poor.

Please clarify what you mean by "we have the money". Last I checked, the country is in debt. Do you mean "other Americans have money that can be redistributed"?
 
This looks like a slippery slope argument to me. I'm not buying it. Just because you raise the minimum wage doesn't mean everyone else gets a raise from their employers.

Reality is, your idea is a slippery slope. You don't think your idea has not been studied to great length by politicians hoping to score political points? Your idea has been tried to a certain extent. It only works for a little while and then things find their economic equilibrium. Only the numbers change. A fry cook will only ever have the purchasing power of a fry cook. A towel folder will only have the purchasing power of a towel folder. Slippery slope or not, that is reality.
 
Hello, my friend.

Most folks are clueless on how our economy really operates, and make moronic statements about realigning income so everyone is the same.

They have no understanding of how a profit based business operates.

No profit = no businesses.

Of course, these morons have never actually started and run a business of their own.....

True that! :thumbs: There should be lessons that teaches the whiners how to connect the dots!
 
Back
Top Bottom