I hate ayn rand as much as I hate marx they’re both the definition of Dunning Krueger to me. I find most of the communists annoying like if you’re one that realises that all countries calling themselves that aren’t communist at all and are just oppressive regimes then I think you’re ok even if i still think you’re stupid to think a real communist society can exist same with anarchists we both agree that governments are the greatest source of oppression mankind has ever known but we disagree over property rights and I think a few other things as well
No I wouldn’t be okay with paying high taxes I don’t think the government should take any more of my pay than is necessary to provide roads, police, courts , firemen and workfare. Taking of your health is your personal responsibility you should bear the consequences of any decisions you make regarding your body if you wilfully choose to neglect your body then society shouldn’t be forced to shoulder the cost with one exception that being if you’re having a rough time through no fault of your own I believe some state care should be provided. The government is not your personal caretaker it should provide an environment where everyone is provided with the tools that is needed to provide for themselves but it shouldn’t provide everything for you.
They want to have enough money to pay for their necessities and maybe even some left over for luxuries why is that so hard for you to comprehend. Look into why minimum wage was created or why anyone campaigns for it the purpose of minimum wage is to provide an amount that low income people can afford their daily needs not to give them more time off you can ask literally anyone why they want a minimum wage increase and they’ll tell you it’s that they can have more money to live a decent life and not more time off. You clearly didn’t read the part of the article where it stated because of the numerous amount of variables affecting employment there’s no sure way to accurately predict the effects of minimum wage but even in the best case scenario where there’s little to no change in the unemployment rate it still does a terrible job of it’s intended goal of poverty alleviation and that you could actually fix poverty with lowering taxes for low income earners and reducing red tape so that more businesses can easily set up shop in the state leading to job mobility, more money in low income earner pockets and lower costs of goods and costs in the state.
You’re right that minimum wages are sold as putting more money in people’s pockets. I can see why you would focus on that benefit, but the whole point is to make people’s lives better. If someone offered me the same amount of money for working 20% fewer hours, I would take it. Assuming minimum wage doesn’t put more money in workers’ pockets, it improves quality of life by giving back time over the status quo.
The low income worker wants more money in their pockets not more free time it doesn’t matter if they have more free time if they still don’t have enough funds to pay for their daily needs and have some left over for luxuries that’s what would make their life benefit more money in their pockets and that’s not what minimum wage is sold as that’s literally it’s purpose.
Again, status quo is what it is. Individuals won’t be making less money. Same money + more free time = huge black market increase?
Did you even read what I wrote in which I clearly state that cutting hours is just a way one employer may choose to offset the minimum wage increase and that they could lay off workers instead.
A progressive tax policy was just an example of something other than typical rich people/corporation cuts. My point is that the people publishing this article have an expressed intent to advocate for the reduction of taxes. In the US that means exactly what you’ve said - a reduction of taxes on the rich cloaked in the lie of helping everyday people keep more of their money. I brought it up as a reason to be skeptical of the conclusions they draw.
Again if you read what I wrote you and if you read the blog posts of the author you would’ve realized that I’m advocating tax cuts for ALL income groups and that progressive taxes are at best a band aid for solving the issue of poverty and that there are much better ways to actually solve poverty.
The study they cite doesn’t say take home pay falls. It says take home pay stays the same and hours are reduced. I agree that isn’t meeting the goal of raising wages, but it does allow more free time for workers. That is especially important where minimum wage earners have to work multiple jobs. Imagine telling some working 3, 20 hour a week jobs that they could make the same amount of money working just 2 of those jobs, but the policy is bad because they won’t make more money overall.
Of course it’s a bad policy if they’re working the same amount of money the whole point of minimum wage is to give low income people more funds to take home so it stands to reason that if they’re not taking home more money then that yes this policy is bad this is not even considering that different employers deal with minimum wage differently such as they may fire personnel which would cause a huge increase in the black market as they’re forced to seek out jobs underground as employers can’t afford/don’t want to pay them the minimum wage and increase in crime as they cannot find anyway to pay for their expenses legally and they could pass on the costs to the consumers which would cause a huge increase in the price of goods and services in the state.
Cut taxes and reduce regulations doesn’t have a history in the US for helping people in lower income brackets. Replacing current taxes on the poor with higher taxes on the rich? That might work. I also don’t believe ‘let us develop more land and the cost of living will go down.’ Everywhere I have seen that in practice megadevelopers get rich creating suburbs. Maybe it would be a net good if the houses were allotted and free of cost to the Native Hawaiians who have been waiting decades for housing they have been promised to become available.
Cutting taxes and reducing regulations haven’t particularly helped lower income persons in the US because they’ve only ever lowered taxes for high income people permanently and mostly needed regulations were cut and not excessive red tape. Progressive taxes are horrible way to solve inequality look no further than South Africa to see why that’s a bad idea a better solution would be workfare for all able bodied persons along with subsidization of the necessities, support from the government and charity for those that aren’t and eliminating any and all loopholes in the tax code. I’m not an expert in housing so I really have no idea on how to solve all across the world whether via government, the free market or a combination of both housing prices are extremely high so there’s no simple solution that I/anyone else could recommend.
From their mission statement: “The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is a nonprofit policy research organization that seeks to educate people about the values of individual liberty, economic freedom and accountable government.”
Other places describe them as a “conservative think tank.”
So?
My favorite part of the article is when the site a study saying that the response to minimum wage increases was that people had hours reduced to offset the increases. Same pay for less hours? Seems like a win for the worker even if it is not a net gain in money.
If the goal is the raise the minimum wage so that low income workers can take home more money to deal with the high costs of living then obviously them having their wage fall is bad along with the fact the article is trying to drive home that unless the key reasons for the high cost of living, excessive red tape and high taxes, then no amount of wage increases will be to offset the state’s high cost of living.
where did you see/hear about this?