• 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!

Stimulus Check

mrjurrs said:
If an employer cannot pay the wage required, it is quite possible that the employer should NOT be in that business. Or we could just return to the antebellum model.
Click to expand...

The problem is trying to force an employer (or a society) to pay (entry level) workers doing the same work side by side different hourly rates based on differences in those workers household's sizes and/or other household income. That is what having the "safety net" does - it allows one McWorker to get a far higher net pay than another McWorker who does not 'qualify' for any (or as much) "safety net" assistance as their co-McWorker.

It is far less costly for "job creators" (and society) to pay some additional taxation in order to support a "safety net" system than it would be to pay all McWorkers a "living wage". That "safety net" system then creates a new problem - a McWorker who 'qualifies' for "safety net" assistance no longer has the incentive gain the skills (or to put forth the additional effort) necessary to work for a higher wage since any increase in their own (or even other household members) wage income is offset by a reduction in that household's "safety net" assistance - in some cases resulting in more work for the same (or even less) net pay.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That sounds good in theory, but if McJob plus safety net benefits supplies a "living wage" then there is much less pressure on many "job creators" to offer higher pay/benefits.
Click to expand...
Employment pay & terms will always be a supply & demand function. If in demand skills are desired, the employer will have to pay the price. If a prospective employee is smart, they'll identify & accrue those skills.
 
Chomsky said:
Employment pay & terms will always be a supply & demand function. If in demand skills are desired, the employer will have to pay the price. If a prospective employee is smart, they'll identify & accrue those skills.
Click to expand...

Nope, the employer is going to offer only that which is required to attract and retain qualified labor. If "the poor" get "free" medical care insurance then an employer (job creator) has no need to offer enough to cover the cost of McWorker's medical care insurance costs. You overestimate the "skills" required for McJobs.
 
Chomsky said:
Employment pay & terms will always be a supply & demand function. If in demand skills are desired, the employer will have to pay the price. If a prospective employee is smart, they'll identify & accrue those skills.
Click to expand...

While theoretically true, unless those "skills" are protected by the walls of licensing/certification, then they are not always so unique that someone else cannot be found in short order.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is trying to force an employer (or a society) to pay (entry level) workers doing the same work side by side different hourly rates based on differences in those workers household's sizes and/or other household income. That is what having the "safety net" does - it allows one McWorker to get a far higher net pay than another McWorker who does not 'qualify' for any (or as much) "safety net" assistance as their co-McWorker.

It is far less costly for "job creators" (and society) to pay some additional taxation in order to support a "safety net" system than it would be to pay all McWorkers a "living wage". That "safety net" system then creates a new problem - a McWorker who 'qualifies' for "safety net" assistance no longer has the incentive gain the skills (or to put forth the additional effort) necessary to work for a higher wage since any increase in their own (or even other household members) wage income is offset by a reduction in that household's "safety net" assistance - in some cases resulting in more work for the same (or even less) net pay.
Click to expand...

Yeah, AND it provides an incentive for people to have a bunch of kids they aren't truly capable of properly supporting or properly parenting! It, along with other unchecked "progressive entitlement" handouts encourages and rewards laziness, apathy, and a vast increase in taxes, "carbon emissions", pollution, etc, because of the additional people who'll be added to the population as a result of these types of ill informed and detrimental policies.

It's similar to the problems caused when the "progressive" elites and democrats intentionally misuse and abuse constitutional protections that were set up 150 years ago specifically for ex-slaves, by ENCOURAGING millions of illegal immigrants to sneak over the border and immediately start having lots of kids, to exploit our constitution in order NOT to be deported! The ONLY people who truly benefit from these types of corrupt policies, are the democrat politicians and left wing elites. It's a detrimental burdeon to everyone else! It's certainly NOT GOOD for the unwanted kids who are born and used by their unmarried parents as "leverage"(ie. tools) to gain potential amnesty, instead of legally immigrating here like everyone else!

Those kids are going to grow up in poor, single parent households, to a parent who isnt financially prepared to have 3-4 kids! It's NOT healthy mentally or physically for kids to grow up in an environment where their parent had them for ulterior reasons, NOT because they truly wanted, and were prepared to start a family!


Thats not even to mention the vastly increased amount of taxes that CITIZENS will have to fork out to pay for those kids' public school educations, at between $9,000 to $29,000 A YEAR, PER CHILD, depending upon which region they choose to live in!

Then there's the taxpayer funded healthcare for that entire family, the probably food stamps and welfare payments, maybe even subsidized housing!!
 
Last edited:
ModerationNow! said:
That's important, because the Coronavirus shutdown has caused a shortage of artificial lures being cast into ponds and lakes, causing bass to "suffer" a shortage of hooks being jabbed through the sides of their faces... But somehow I bet they are enjoying this temporary reprieve. Maybe they'll evolve to completely avoid fake lures, or live bait with hooks sticking out of it...
Click to expand...


Won't happen, green carp are stupid, easiest fish In the world to catch.

That's why people dumber than fish spend 85,000 dollars on a sparkly boat to look cool while they catch them...
 
Last edited:
GDViking said:
Won't happen, green carp are stupid, easiest fish In the world to catch.

That's why people dumber than fish spend 85,000 dollars on a sparkly boat to look cool while they catch them...
Click to expand...

Dork-fish--13298_09102014_205201.jpg
 
We got our stimulus check and we don't need it. We have to decide do we donate it to Biden for President, or to Amy McGrath for Senate.
 
Drawdown said:
While theoretically true, unless those "skills" are protected by the walls of licensing/certification, then they are not always so unique that someone else cannot be found in short order.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. You overlook the qualifications of skills, education, experience, and expertise.
 
Chomsky said:
Not necessarily. You overlook the qualifications of skills, education, experience, and expertise.
Click to expand...

I don't overlook them. Cheaper is often better than more educated.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is trying to force an employer (or a society) to pay (entry level) workers doing the same work side by side different hourly rates based on differences in those workers household's sizes and/or other household income. That is what having the "safety net" does - it allows one McWorker to get a far higher net pay than another McWorker who does not 'qualify' for any (or as much) "safety net" assistance as their co-McWorker.

It is far less costly for "job creators" (and society) to pay some additional taxation in order to support a "safety net" system than it would be to pay all McWorkers a "living wage". That "safety net" system then creates a new problem - a McWorker who 'qualifies' for "safety net" assistance no longer has the incentive gain the skills (or to put forth the additional effort) necessary to work for a higher wage since any increase in their own (or even other household members) wage income is offset by a reduction in that household's "safety net" assistance - in some cases resulting in more work for the same (or even less) net pay.
Click to expand...
And you've just stated why I'm against income-based benefit programs. If a benefit is worth providing, it should be provided for all - or not at all.

Consequently, I'd provide a small universal income and deep-six all other financial benefits. That way there's always a positive incentive to work & earn money.
 
Chomsky said:
And you've just stated why I'm against income-based benefit programs. If a benefit is worth providing, it should be provided for all - or not at all.

Consequently, I'd provide a small universal income and deep-six all other financial benefits. That way there's always a positive incentive to work & earn money.
Click to expand...

The problem is that millions have become dependent on the larger subsidiies. Medicaid alone now costs about $10K/person annually so that is about $40K for a 4 person household annually - before any "needed" rent, utility and food subsidies get added.
 
Drawdown said:
I don't overlook them. Cheaper is often better than more educated.
Click to expand...
You lost me. You realize I'm listing the things that can drive wages higher in addition to the regulation/licensure you posited. That was my point.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is that millions have become dependent on the larger subsidiies. Medicaid alone now costs about $10K/person annually so that is about $40K for a 4 person household annually - before any "needed" rent, utility and food subsidies get added.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed. That's why for a plan like mine to work, it requires single-payer healthcare to be available. I just didn't mention it to keep things simple.

But I despise income-based benefits. Too much disincentive.
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, agreed. That's why for a plan like mine to work, it requires single-payer healthcare to be available. I just didn't mention it to keep things simple.

But I despise income-based benefits. Too much disincentive.
Click to expand...

Congress refuses to tax enough to even cover current annual federal spending and you want to start off by adding more spending - good luck with that plan.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Congress refuses to tax enough to even cover current annual federal spending and you want to start off by adding more spending - good luck with that plan.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd drop pretty much all the other bennies though. It would be interesting to see the numbers on it, but I have no idea how.
 
Chomsky said:
You lost me. You realize I'm listing the things that can drive wages higher in addition to the regulation/licensure you posited. That was my point.
Click to expand...

And I am critiquing your position. That is my point. You cannot replace a CPA with someone without the certification, but you can replace the head of finance with the woman who assisted the head of finance for 20 years or the $45K bookkeeper with someone fresh out of school or a lady who does the books at her church. There are always ways to backslide on quality to save money if you are so inclined.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, you'd drop pretty much all the other bennies though. It would be interesting to see the numbers on it, but I have no idea how.
Click to expand...

The dropped benefits now go to about 12% to 15% of the population (households) while your added benefits would go to many more (all adults?). There is no way that seems possible without major tax increases.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The dropped benefits now go to about 12% to 15% of the population (households) while your added benefits would go to many more (all adults?). There is no way that seems possible without major tax increases.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll be the first to say I really don't know if it's economically feasible. But it would be great to see some numbers. Oh well ...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is trying to force an employer (or a society) to pay (entry level) workers doing the same work side by side different hourly rates based on differences in those workers household's sizes and/or other household income. That is what having the "safety net" does - it allows one McWorker to get a far higher net pay than another McWorker who does not 'qualify' for any (or as much) "safety net" assistance as their co-McWorker.

It is far less costly for "job creators" (and society) to pay some additional taxation in order to support a "safety net" system than it would be to pay all McWorkers a "living wage". That "safety net" system then creates a new problem - a McWorker who 'qualifies' for "safety net" assistance no longer has the incentive gain the skills (or to put forth the additional effort) necessary to work for a higher wage since any increase in their own (or even other household members) wage income is offset by a reduction in that household's "safety net" assistance - in some cases resulting in more work for the same (or even less) net pay.
Click to expand...

There will always be slackers, maybe if we treated slackers born on third base the same as lazy people we'd see changes in how your situation was resolved.
 
ModerationNow! said:
Yeah, AND it provides an incentive for people to have a bunch of kids they aren't truly capable of properly supporting or properly parenting! It, along with other unchecked "progressive entitlement" handouts encourages and rewards laziness, apathy, and a vast increase in taxes, "carbon emissions", pollution, etc, because of the additional people who'll be added to the population as a result of these types of ill informed and detrimental policies.

It's similar to the problems caused when the "progressive" elites and democrats intentionally misuse and abuse constitutional protections that were set up 150 years ago specifically for ex-slaves, by ENCOURAGING millions of illegal immigrants to sneak over the border and immediately start having lots of kids, to exploit our constitution in order NOT to be deported! The ONLY people who truly benefit from these types of corrupt policies, are the democrat politicians and left wing elites. It's a detrimental burdeon to everyone else! It's certainly NOT GOOD for the unwanted kids who are born and used by their unmarried parents as "leverage"(ie. tools) to gain potential amnesty, instead of legally immigrating here like everyone else!

Those kids are going to grow up in poor, single parent households, to a parent who isnt financially prepared to have 3-4 kids! It's NOT healthy mentally or physically for kids to grow up in an environment where their parent had them for ulterior reasons, NOT because they truly wanted, and were prepared to start a family!


Thats not even to mention the vastly increased amount of taxes that CITIZENS will have to fork out to pay for those kids' public school educations, at between $9,000 to $29,000 A YEAR, PER CHILD, depending upon which region they choose to live in!

Then there's the taxpayer funded healthcare for that entire family, the probably food stamps and welfare payments, maybe even subsidized housing!!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you got yours...
 
Wry Catcher said:
We got our stimulus check and we don't need it. We have to decide do we donate it to Biden for President, or to Amy McGrath for Senate.
Click to expand...

I'd say McGrath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom