4 ms·
>the lion's share of the social security system exists to subsidize companies unwilling to pay their workers a living wage. What? That totally isn't true. Mini
by constantcrying 2y ago
>the lion's share of the social security system exists to subsidize companies unwilling to pay their workers a living wage.
What? That totally isn't true. Minimum wage is high enough already. It absolutely is a "living wage".
>Are you saying the government should drastically raise the minimum wage in order to cut back on social security expenses?
No, they should drastically cut back on taxes and social spending.
- hnbad 2y ago> What? That totally isn't true. That's literally true. There's even a word for it: Aufstocken. Are you saying Bürgergeld is too high? That the standard of a living wage should be lower than Bürgergeld currently is? How do you define a "living wage" then? You say minimum wage is (too?) high, taxes are "drastically" too high and social spending is "drastically" too high. What does that mean? What tax rates per bracket would you find acceptable? How much lower should Bürgeld be or which group of current recipients should be excluded from it? Or what other social welfare programmes are you thinking of that should be cut? It's easy to say that "social spending" is too high if you look at a context-free aggregate value. But what do you actually envision when you say that you think it should be "drastically" cut?