4 ms·

I understand where you are coming from when you say that " It's a good thing these employees are getting government aid" but that's only because the alternative

I understand where you are coming from when you say that " It's a good thing these employees are getting government aid" but that's only because the alternative is not having any aid. Which is obviously worse. I support increasing the amount of government aid available but the companies are obviously taking advantage of it. These companies don't care about hiring disabled people and single parents. They aren't a charity, if they could hire people to work for even less money they would. The companies need to be taxed for every single employee that is on benefits. If the tax is high enough they will either increase how much they pay or fire the struggling employees, I doubt future employees will be in a different set of circumstances. Companies are incentivized by profit. If there is a behavior that you don't want to happen tax or fine it. If the behavior remains, increase the tax/fine. Instead these companies get slaps on the wrist or even rewarded.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The companies need to be taxed for every single employee that is on benefits. That's...stupid. Taxing employment just encourages more capital intensive, less labor intensive business models, further straining public support systems. Specifically targeting employment at the low end is even worse than general employment taxes. Instead, payroll taxes should be eliminated with the revenue replaced by raising progressive income taxes and/or equalizing capital income taxes with general income taxes, so that labor isn't a specially tax-disfavored income source. This will make it cheaper to employ workers at any after-tax income level, and also make labor-intensive business models less tax-disfavored compared to capital-intensive models, redistributing gains of economic activity to labor.
- ftpPoster 5y ago
  I mean we should be moving to less labor intensive business models anyway. Companies that already embrace automation are getting rid of the workers. We as a society should get ahead of this and ensure that the people who need help are able to get it. I'm also curious why we need to make it cheaper to employ workers? What does society gain from having people work for 40 hours a week but still live in poverty?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I mean we should be moving to less labor intensive business models anyway. It's true that technological progress will makes that naturally more sensible over time without using tax policy to make labor artificially more expensive through extra taxes. > Companies that already embrace automation are getting rid of the workers That's...tautologically true, yes. > We as a society should get ahead of this and ensure that the people who need help are able to get it. Shifting the tax burden from labor by not taxing labor income more than regular income (via payroll taxes) which in turn is taxed more than capital income (which, as well as not paying additional psytoll taxes, has a special, lower rate) of a fairly simple way to do that, or to reduce the number of people that need help, depending on how you look at it. Punitive taxes on labor income and employment make the problems worse. Additional punitive taxes on employment aren't a solution. > I'm also curious why we need to make it cheaper to employ workers? The reason we need to make it cheaper to employ workers at any given level of take-home pay is that it directly increases effective wages and reduces poverty. > What does society gain from having people work for 40 hours a week but still live in poverty? It... doesn't. That's why need to have the government stop taking a bigger chunk out of pay to workers than any other income-generating transaction.
missedthecue 5y ago
If we tax Walmart for every employee on government aid, they're going to throw away every application from disabled people and single parents, because they're going to cost hourly wage plus the additional welfare tax. Who is that helping?
- ftpPoster 5y ago
  That makes sense. But why can't walmart just pay the bare minimum so that their employees don't qualify for welfare?
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    They do, unless you have additional circumstances which qualify you for aid (such as being a single mom, or having a disability).
  - djbebs 5y ago
    Why do you believe it is McDonald's role to act as social security?
    - ftpPoster 5y ago
      I don't. Didn't realize that paying a living wage was social security.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The companies need to be taxed for every single employee that is on benefits. That's...stupid. Taxing employment just encourages more capital intensive, less labor intensive business models, further straining public support systems. Specifically targeting employment at the low end is even worse than general employment taxes. Instead, payroll taxes should be eliminated with the revenue replaced by raising progressive income taxes and/or equalizing capital income taxes with general income taxes, so that labor isn't a specially tax-disfavored income source. This will make it cheaper to employ workers at any after-tax income level, and also make labor-intensive business models less tax-disfavored compared to capital-intensive models, redistributing gains of economic activity to labor.

ftpPoster 5y ago
I mean we should be moving to less labor intensive business models anyway. Companies that already embrace automation are getting rid of the workers. We as a society should get ahead of this and ensure that the people who need help are able to get it. I'm also curious why we need to make it cheaper to employ workers? What does society gain from having people work for 40 hours a week but still live in poverty?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I mean we should be moving to less labor intensive business models anyway. It's true that technological progress will makes that naturally more sensible over time without using tax policy to make labor artificially more expensive through extra taxes. > Companies that already embrace automation are getting rid of the workers That's...tautologically true, yes. > We as a society should get ahead of this and ensure that the people who need help are able to get it. Shifting the tax burden from labor by not taxing labor income more than regular income (via payroll taxes) which in turn is taxed more than capital income (which, as well as not paying additional psytoll taxes, has a special, lower rate) of a fairly simple way to do that, or to reduce the number of people that need help, depending on how you look at it. Punitive taxes on labor income and employment make the problems worse. Additional punitive taxes on employment aren't a solution. > I'm also curious why we need to make it cheaper to employ workers? The reason we need to make it cheaper to employ workers at any given level of take-home pay is that it directly increases effective wages and reduces poverty. > What does society gain from having people work for 40 hours a week but still live in poverty? It... doesn't. That's why need to have the government stop taking a bigger chunk out of pay to workers than any other income-generating transaction.

missedthecue 5y ago

If we tax Walmart for every employee on government aid, they're going to throw away every application from disabled people and single parents, because they're going to cost hourly wage plus the additional welfare tax. Who is that helping?

ftpPoster 5y ago
That makes sense. But why can't walmart just pay the bare minimum so that their employees don't qualify for welfare?
- missedthecue 5y ago
  They do, unless you have additional circumstances which qualify you for aid (such as being a single mom, or having a disability).
- djbebs 5y ago
  Why do you believe it is McDonald's role to act as social security?
  - ftpPoster 5y ago
    I don't. Didn't realize that paying a living wage was social security.