By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Federal minimum wage is unconstitutional

richardhutnik on 05 October 2010

mrstickball, how well is the current 401K system working to insure people can retire?  In my case, my 401K disappeared in a failed business venture, after I withdrew it.  I had like $36K and it went away.  As it is now, with myself over 40, and job prospects grim, I don't expect to ever retire.  I will have to keep working until I drop dead.  If I get so laid up I can't work, I guess maybe society can take me out somewhere and shoot me, so I don't burden tax payers, like was seen in this reply to my story here:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/01/sen-scrooge-bunnings-brushback-pitch-hurting-the-unemployed/

3-01-2010 @ 4:26PM

RGB said...

I THINK SUICIDE WOULD WORK FOR THIS LOSER.STOP HIS WHINING AND REDUCE MY TAXES.WHAT A JERKOFF.

A variant on this is the state sets up termination of life areas, and people who owe money would sign up, and be killed off.  Their organs could be harvested and sold off to the highest bidder, to pay of debts of all sort.  Such things would be a boon for society, and could actually result in hiring people.


Around the Network
mrstickball on 05 October 2010
richardhutnik said:

mrstickball, how well is the current 401K system working to insure people can retire?

Far better than social security.

http://www.needmoneytips.com/2010/03/calculate-expected-401k-returns/

Over a 30 year period, S&P returns have provided 13% per annum, even in 2010 with us having Black Friday, the tech bubble burst of 2000, and the crash/recession of 2008.

Comparatively, Social Security earns about 2-3% per annum.

I'd say that 401k's, despite taking a beating in the past 10 years are still better than social security. Even with returns being their worst in the past 10 years, it still beats social security.

Of course, I don't believe 401k's are entirely the way to go. When I worked for the State of Ohio, they had a phenomenal program in OPERS. I earned about 6-7% per annum via their traditional pension plans, which had a very diverse portfolio. Again, that was twice what Social Security has paid anyone. Ever.

 

*edit* I understand that you've lost money via 401k's, and I'm very sorry to hear that. I'm not arguing that 401k's-only would be the way to go. Optimally, the system would allow pensioners to invest their money in both low-risk and high-risk activities. However, social security allows neither, as all monies earned go into US treasury bonds which return horrible rates.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

richardhutnik on 05 October 2010
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

I agree with him.

It'd be an incredible world if the government didn't take 30% of everyones income. Imagine the living standards of the poor and middle class that had far less taxation.

Ultimately, major spending such as the mentioned (health care, pensions, ect) should be dealt with from a state or personal level. Many of the programs the government has that were listed (Medicaid/care, social security, ect) are utter failures, which cost much more than equivilent private programs.

Over 40% of the U.S population pays no federal income tax.  How exactly does cutting taxes help them?  I believe you need to have less ideological purity and mmore real data.  As far as up to individuals, unless I get help. I stand a distinct chance of never becpming employable for health reasons.  I was told I need over $2000 to cover a gap insurgey expenses that I don't have.  By the way, the costs to administer Medicare is far less than the costs toadminister private insurance.

Payroll Taxes.

You may not pay into FICA, but you will pay into social security and medicare, regardless of income. That is where the pain comes to those barely making a living. Furthermore, even if you don't pay federal taxes, it is done by taking money from you today, and giving it back to you without interest at a later day. That damages poor and middle class workers that may need that money today, and are forced to either borrow, or go without.

I must also ask: If overhead is so much cheaper for government insurance, why does private insurance cost about 45% less per enrollment than Medicare in the US?

In my case, without Medicaid, I am looking at ZERO prospects to get health coverage now, and gewt help needed to get fixed up so I can at least work a part-time janitor position.  Flat out, if you have better solutions to assist myself and others, NOW to help me get back on my feet, so I can be productive, do drop me a note.  If you don't, you really don't have answers for people, outside of some unproven hypothetical world that is superior in your mind to what is.



mrstickball on 05 October 2010
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

Payroll Taxes.

You may not pay into FICA, but you will pay into social security and medicare, regardless of income. That is where the pain comes to those barely making a living. Furthermore, even if you don't pay federal taxes, it is done by taking money from you today, and giving it back to you without interest at a later day. That damages poor and middle class workers that may need that money today, and are forced to either borrow, or go without.

I must also ask: If overhead is so much cheaper for government insurance, why does private insurance cost about 45% less per enrollment than Medicare in the US?

In my case, without Medicaid, I am looking at ZERO prospects to get health coverage now, and gewt help needed to get fixed up so I can at least work a part-time janitor position.  Flat out, if you have better solutions to assist myself and others, NOW to help me get back on my feet, so I can be productive, do drop me a note.  If you don't, you really don't have answers for people, outside of some unproven hypothetical world that is superior in your mind to what is.

Very well, I'll play your game:

What kind of degree do you hold, currently?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rath on 05 October 2010
mrstickball said:
Rath said:

I'm not saying the systems in America work very well or are efficient. I'm saying your assertion that cutting everybodies taxes equally and then cutting government funding for these systems will somehow help the poor is just plain wrong.

Cutting taxes across the board helps the rich the most while cutting welfare systems hurts the poor the most. Your suggestion that cutting the taxes and cutting the welfare is going to help the poor just doesn't

Where did I advocate cutting all welfare programs? I mentioned only entitlement programs that rip off the taxpayer, namely Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security as being the top entitlement culprits.

Poor people pay taxes. When I was making $10,000 a year as a park caretaker, I paid taxes. When I made $30,000 a year, I paid taxes. Yes, I got most or all of my FICA taxes back, but I still had to pay payroll taxes! I still paid 8.5% to social security! I still paid 3.0% to medicare/medicaid!

I believe we need to cut payroll taxes, which hurt the poor and middle class the most. Social security and medicare are capped for those that earn more than $100,000 which makes the argument that it benefits the rich the most, a false argument. If these mandatory taxes can be cut or removed, it would free up a lot of money (about 11.5%) for those in poverty to invest and get better health care.

Those entitlement programs are the welfare programs that help the poor the most. They do cost the middle class and the rich money, there is no denying that. You can't help the poor without somebody losing out somewhere along the line.

Let me ask you, for a person on an extremely low income - would the amount they pay in taxes cover their medical bills? I'm fairly certain the answer is no. They get a net benefit from these social security systems, far more than the amount that they pay in taxes.

If you want to cut the payroll taxes and replace them with taxes on higher incomes or luxury goods so welfare can still help the poor, then I would agree with you.



Around the Network
mrstickball on 05 October 2010
Rath said:
mrstickball said:
Rath said:

I'm not saying the systems in America work very well or are efficient. I'm saying your assertion that cutting everybodies taxes equally and then cutting government funding for these systems will somehow help the poor is just plain wrong.

Cutting taxes across the board helps the rich the most while cutting welfare systems hurts the poor the most. Your suggestion that cutting the taxes and cutting the welfare is going to help the poor just doesn't

Where did I advocate cutting all welfare programs? I mentioned only entitlement programs that rip off the taxpayer, namely Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security as being the top entitlement culprits.

Poor people pay taxes. When I was making $10,000 a year as a park caretaker, I paid taxes. When I made $30,000 a year, I paid taxes. Yes, I got most or all of my FICA taxes back, but I still had to pay payroll taxes! I still paid 8.5% to social security! I still paid 3.0% to medicare/medicaid!

I believe we need to cut payroll taxes, which hurt the poor and middle class the most. Social security and medicare are capped for those that earn more than $100,000 which makes the argument that it benefits the rich the most, a false argument. If these mandatory taxes can be cut or removed, it would free up a lot of money (about 11.5%) for those in poverty to invest and get better health care.

Those entitlement programs are the welfare programs that help the poor the most. They do cost the middle class and the rich money, there is no denying that. You can't help the poor without somebody losing out somewhere along the line.

Let me ask you, for a person on an extremely low income - would the amount they pay in taxes cover their medical bills? I'm fairly certain the answer is no. They get a net benefit from these social security systems, far more than the amount that they pay in taxes.

If you want to cut the payroll taxes and replace them with taxes on higher incomes or luxury goods so welfare can still help the poor, then I would agree with you.

Would the amount of money in payroll taxes cover someone's medical insurance if they had no or reduced payroll taxes?

The answer is that it depends on what 'very low income' means. Are you talking about someone that earns minimum wage? If so, the answer is yes. You see, even if you make minimum wage, you will pay out about 20-25% of your paycheck in taxes - 11.5% in Social Security and Medicare, about 3-4% in state taxes (varies by state) and the rest being federal taxes, which you will get back at the end of the year.

For someone on minimum wage, that means that about $3,000 is taken out.

In my scenario, instead of paying out 20-25% in taxes, they would pay out about 6% between state (which still gives you general welfare, ect) and pension (much less needing invested for the same earnings due to higher compound interest rates). The savings would be around $2,000/yr for a minimum wage earner.

The average individual plan in the US costs $2,000 un-subsidized. So there is that person's private health care plan.

Primarily, my issue with payroll taxes is that they are very inefficient. You don't need to replace payroll taxes with luxury/income taxes on richer people. You simply can offer a more efficient system which requires far less money to operate.

Lets take Social Security vs. a private plan. Lets use the comparison of 7% APR in the private plan (which is low, but we'll use it) vs. 2.32% which is considered a medium rate of return for someone on social security.

Under Social Security, a person working for 30 years at $33,000 will retire with $35,237 in pension (at 8.5% of his check going into SS). Comparatively, to earn the same pension via a private plan at 7%, only 3.5% of that person's check would need to be removed for the same return! That correlates to a 5% reduction in taxes without any sort of change in benefits (assuming the current system worked, which it doesn't). Wouldn't that 5% be more helpful in a poor person's hands than in the government?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

The Ghost of RubangB on 05 October 2010

Hahahahha, I came in here expecting an argument that the federal minimum wage was too LOW because it isn't actually a living wage.

Look at it this way: if you work a minimum wage job, THANK YOUR GOVERNMENT.  What that means is: that job would love to pay you less, but the government won't let them, because the government understands that without people who are alive, there will be crazy revolutions.  And people fought for that right.  It's called progress.

I didn't expect the crazy argument that "all progress is bad, because the constitution didn't say 'things could get better.'"  You know what else isn't in the constitution?  Rights for women, blacks, gays, children, or pretty much anybody that isn't a white male landowner.  So we had 2 options: amend the constitution, or burn it and start over.  Luckily we chose the former, and here we are, still getting better very slowly.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Kasz216 on 05 October 2010
The Ghost of RubangB said:

Hahahahha, I came in here expecting an argument that the federal minimum wage was too LOW because it isn't actually a living wage.

Look at it this way: if you work a minimum wage job, THANK YOUR GOVERNMENT.  What that means is: that job would love to pay you less, but the government won't let them, because the government understands that without people who are alive, there will be crazy revolutions.  And people fought for that right.  It's called progress.

I didn't expect the crazy argument that "all progress is bad, because the constitution didn't say 'things could get better.'"  You know what else isn't in the constitution?  Rights for women, blacks, gays, children, or pretty much anybody that isn't a white male landowner.  So we had 2 options: amend the constitution, or burn it and start over.  Luckily we chose the former, and here we are, still getting better very slowly.

What's with farms not having to pay minimium wage anyway?  I mean that's one reason we have so much illegal immigration anyway.

Nobody wants to pick beans at 2 dollars an hour when you get paid more to not work.



Not_Wessle on 05 October 2010

I don't beleive in the constitution! It doesn't even exist!



Farmageddon on 05 October 2010

@ mrstickball

I don't know about the progrmas' efficiency, but it's a fact that financially taking money from everyone, with more money being taken from the richer, and redistributing it among everyone can only benefit the poorer. So maybe the system could be better, but saying the poor people would be the most benefited or benefited at all by taking it away doesn't seem to make much sense.