What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

No, they are not. But employers hire people every day. Aside from the pandemic lockdown, the employers in the US hire the overwhelming majority of the population.

In order to get a job, especially a better job, you try to curry the favor of the employer. Not being a suckup, but by doing what they need to make their business better.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment and why is there any homelessness in Right to Work States?

Changing direction yet again.

Once you win, he changes direction, that shows how clueless he really is on his fallacy of cause.

It's pretty easy to tell when you've painted him into a corner, because that's when the hackneyed phrases come out again, followed by him pronouncing himself the winner.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't complain about taxes, that is you trying to change the subject because you have gotten to a point where you can't answer a simple question.

Why do I need to qualify for UC and another person does not? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States. Any amount you earn would reduce the unemployment compensation benefit. So, why do that instead of simply get an easy job that pays at least fifteen dollars an hour if you need more money. Or, learn how to invest in markets until you can generate enough income to meet your current lifestyle goals?

That is not how unemployment works. Unemployment replaces earned income that is lost due to losing a job without cause.

Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

You are supposed to report income earned while on unemployment. It reduces the benefit amount.

 

[danielpalos]

The extended unemployment is an added 13 weeks,

The extended benefits are what helped those participants be more rational and helped engender the more favorable multiplier.

If you say so but when you change a program, you change the effect.

The effect is better coverage and greater efficiency for our economy.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't complain about taxes, that is you trying to change the subject because you have gotten to a point where you can't answer a simple question.

Why do I need to qualify for UC and another person does not? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States. Any amount you earn would reduce the unemployment compensation benefit. So, why do that instead of simply get an easy job that pays at least fifteen dollars an hour if you need more money. Or, learn how to invest in markets until you can generate enough income to meet your current lifestyle goals?

That is not how unemployment works. Unemployment replaces earned income that is lost due to losing a job without cause.

Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

You are supposed to report income earned while on unemployment. It reduces the benefit amount.

Yes, you do, I never said different. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Now answer the question. Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

 

[Papageorgio]

The extended unemployment is an added 13 weeks,

The extended benefits are what helped those participants be more rational and helped engender the more favorable multiplier.

If you say so but when you change a program, you change the effect.

The effect is better coverage and greater efficiency for our economy.

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Absolute bullshit. Do you have link for that? Because I can prove you are lying.

2020-2021 Tax Brackets | Bankrate

That link shows the federal tax brackets. For a single person making between $9,876 and $40,125, the tax rate is 12%. $7.25 an hour, working 40 hours a week comes to $15,080.00. $15 an hour, working 40 hours a week comes to $31,200.00.

Both $7.25 and $15 pay the same tax percentage of 12%. On $7.25 and hour that comes to $1,809.60 in taxes. On $15 and hour it comes to $3,744.00.
That is NOT nine times more tax paid. Not even close.

I found the numbers last year on an income tax calculator website:

for an income based on a 7.25 hourly wage and it's yearly equivalent of 14,848 the federal income tax due was 193.80.
for an income based on a 15.00 hour wage and it's yearly equivalent of 30,720 the federal income tax due was 1,852.00

I tried it again on that same website but the numbers are different now. The tax code may have changed.

Regardless, even at an even twelve percent for both individuals, the tax generated is still more than double the taxes generated by someone at the current minimum wage and still supports my contention that higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue, in this case at least double.

Twelve percent of 14, 848 is 1,781.76 at twelve percent.

Twelve percent of 30,720 is 3,646.84 at twelve percent.

And can any employer reduce their staff by half and still be competitively productive?

 

[danielpalos]

I have the moral fortitude to work for a living and support myself. You should try it.

lol. I have done it and did not complain about taxes like right wingers tend to do.

And you didn't have the moral fortitude to continue to work. Imagine that.

And given a choice, I had rather have people complain about taxes, and keep working, than to whine about having to work, quit, and demand that others support them.

No employer is required to hire me even in a Right to Work State.

 

[danielpalos]

Absolute bullshit. Do you have link for that? Because I can prove you are lying.

He's right that the individual pays more in the 12% bracket but the corporation pays
less tax in the 21% bracket. Besides reducing employment, it would also reduce
net government revenues.
[/QUOTE]
Can you show us a link? I need to update my information as well.

 

[danielpalos]

More fallacy from the man of fallacy. You are clueless when it comes to the homeless.

High cost of housing drives up homeless rates, UCLA study indicates

Sky-high housing costs are a significant factor behind California’s homeless crisis, according to a new analysis from UCLA.

www.latimes.com

New Research Quantifies the Link Between Housing Affordability and Homelessness - National Alliance to End Homelessness

Over the last couple decades, rents in America have been on the rise. Housing experts describe “severely cost-burdened households” — people who are spending far too much of their income on rent. Citizens rightly insist “the rent is too damn […]

endhomelessness.org

.

Skyrocketing home prices are driving up homelessness rate

As home prices continue to ascend, many aspiring buyers are priced out of homeownership -- or as one study found, priced out of having a home at all.

www.inman.com

Only if you ignore the whole point about raising doubling the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the individual pays more in the 12% tax bracket. But not 9 times more, as he claimed. It is about 2 times more, like the pay rate is roughly 2 times more.

I used the same website last year to get the numbers. The tax code must have changed this year.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are not. But employers hire people every day. Aside from the pandemic lockdown, the employers in the US hire the overwhelming majority of the population.

In order to get a job, especially a better job, you try to curry the favor of the employer. Not being a suckup, but by doing what they need to make their business better.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment and why is there any homelessness in Right to Work States?

There will always be homelessness.

The point is, it can be reduced to the extent it is due to simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

So we are not equal under the law? No unemployment for the sake of being unemployed? You have no job, you get benefits, I have no job, I don't get benefits because why? Because I made better choices than you? It seems you now want to put conditions on your unemployment, where as before you claimed unemployment for simply being unemployed? Giving all unemployed UC would create a multiplier X2! Seems you are not wanting unemployment for all for simply being unemployed in a right to work state.

Not at all. It simply that you make more and benefits are typically reduced by income generated. Would it be worth it to you to apply for unemployment compensation if you are not going to receive very much?

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 452579

Well, 2080 hours at $7.25 is $15,080 gross.
Less $12400 for the standard deduction. $2680 AGI, taxed at 10%, $268 in Federal Income taxes.

2080 hours at $15 is $31,200 gross, less $12400 is $18,800 AGI. $9875 at 10% = $987.50
and $8925 at 12% = $1071.00 Total Federal Income taxes = $2058.50.....$1790.50 more.

1790.5 / 268 = 6.68 times more).

Which is all besides the point.

The employer has a $16,120 larger salary expense for the $15/worker, so he saves $16,120 x 21% or 3385.20, which more than wipes out the 1790.50 gain from the worker.

In other words, employers are reducing hours or staff merely increase their tax burden?

 

[danielpalos]

Are you actually pretending that the opportunity cost is not real?

I am saying that your view of a zero sum effect is not real. There is a difference.

And I am saying that you are completely ignoring the very real opportunity cost AND the fact that you would be changing the program fundamentally, so your cherished and repeated multiplier effect will simply NOT be 2.

I am not ignoring it. It would be more efficient and comprehensive and generate more that two since more people would go on unemployment compensation instead of applying for means tested welfare which has been measured with a multiplier of only .8.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't complain about taxes, that is you trying to change the subject because you have gotten to a point where you can't answer a simple question.

Why do I need to qualify for UC and another person does not? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States. Any amount you earn would reduce the unemployment compensation benefit. So, why do that instead of simply get an easy job that pays at least fifteen dollars an hour if you need more money. Or, learn how to invest in markets until you can generate enough income to meet your current lifestyle goals?

Well, I can see you're not budging from your mantra. Shame, really, since there have been some very helpful attempts at getting you to see the truth. Your first sentence is a flat out untruth and a fallacy. If you had any integrity at all you would stop repeating it.

I resort to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers simply want to be Right merely because they are on the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

You won't get a lot of tax money from people making $15/hr. Why do you think you will get enough money from the people making $15/hr to pay for all the people you're going to give $15/hr to not work? Are you being deliberately dumb about this?

And, again, you won't get a multiplier of two. You need to stop saying that because it's false. You know what that means, you're dishing out FALLACIES, and you have the most of them.

Yes, if the federal income tax receipts double. Employers would have to reduce staff by half to "break even" tax wise.

 

[danielpalos]

Would you please cite your source that homelessness is growing at an alarming rate? We just had a Republican president and the press loves to drag out the old homeless problem when Republicans are president, and they haven't been talking about it.

The link was at the end of the statement.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you do, I never said different. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Now answer the question. Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim that the reduced benefits would probably not make it worth your while.

 

[danielpalos]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have the moral fortitude to work for a living and support myself. You should try it.

lol. I have done it and did not complain about taxes like right wingers tend to do.

And you didn't have the moral fortitude to continue to work. Imagine that.

And given a choice, I had rather have people complain about taxes, and keep working, than to whine about having to work, quit, and demand that others support them.

No employer is required to hire me even in a Right to Work State.

No they are not required to hire you. You have to be what they want. Make them believe you will be a quality employee.

Do you think people are hired because an employer was forced?