Minimum wage increases

[TriGirl 268]

And this is why I recommend a maximum wage in this country. Figure out an equation that let's the highest earners keep no more than a certain multiplier of the a baseline (say, something based on basic necessities in the area such as housing and health care, with the poverty line taken into consideration). Everything you earn in that year above the maximum wage is then their tax burden. You can deduct certain things like business expenses (employee salaries and benefits), donations to eligible charities, etc. You also could be allowed to invest in a retirement plan up to a certain amount. Everything else goes to schools, utility infrastructure, mass transit infrastructure upgrades and roads.

You can either pay your employees, prepare your own reasonable nest egg and contribute to the charities you particularly prefer (example: Bill & Melinda Gates), or your excess ensures a basic standard of living for the rest of society.

Of course, everyone will still pay taxes, which go toward similar things. A maximum wage would balance out cost of living, luxury priced items (you still have to be super wealthy to own high-end items, but not obscenely so), and still allow for super wealthy people. The allowance of a certain percentage to be stashed away for your own retirement could also be applied to mean that once you reach a certain number of years at the max wage, you can no longer be eligible for social security benefits (you had plenty of time and plenty of money to make your own arrangements and spend it how YOU wanted).

There has to be a limit to how much one person/family can amass on the backs of the rest of the population. I'm not suggesting the max wage be $500k, but even if the max wage is $10 mil/year, we'd have a lot more money either filtering down to the workers, or making its way to the community infrastructure.

Yeah, I have no doubt there are flaws in my idea, but sometimes I think limiting the amount of money someone could earn and keep in a year is the only way to ensure they're paying their people a fair price and providing for the opportunities of the society and for the common good.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[PhreeZone 15]

There are several national level employers that offer benefits for warehouse positions on day one including Amazon but not every city has one of these warehouses in its backyard like there are of Walmarts.

Most Walmart positions are not min wage either since they start at around $10 which is most than Min wage. Due to the last round of raises they claim their average hourly salary is $13.38 for full time and 10.58 for Part time. The insurance plan that they advertise for less than $25 a week also has a $4000 deductible. At Wal-mart average wages post tax you will bring home $809 biweekly post taxes and paying for the insurance so it only takes 10 -11 weeks of work to be able to pay off the deductible if you spend 100% of your take home to pay the bills.

Walmart did a large round of raises in 2016 to boost the starting wages of all employees, previously they were starting at 7.50 ish and then you moved from there. As of 2016 they implemented a new policy to start full timers at $9 and then go to $10 when training is complete. Workers average .40 cent raises yearly but can get up to .60 a year on their performance reviews. Here in Ohio full time workers are eligible at those income levels for Medicaid for the first 1-2 years of their employment so Walmart does not have to cover them from a benefits standpoint and there are multiple news reports and stories out there of managers encouraging their employees to get the state/federal benefits rather than getting company ones. The ones that have to pay for those are the rest of the tax payers.

Ohio's Medicaid limit is at 133% of the poverty level so Monthly income is defined as $1337 for a single person age 19-65, at the average Walmart wages you would make $1665 per month so it is over that limit but at a difference of $328 a month. If you have chronic health issues or know that you have medical expenses it actually pays to quit a higher wage job and find a job to get you under that income limit ($10.20 full time) and on Medicaid since you get a lot more benefits for being on Medicaid also.

This is one of those things that are screwed up with our current systems today - the lowest earners are stuck in a cycle where if they do start to get ahead all it takes is one accident and they are wiped out due to the overwhelming expenses of the healthcare system.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 3]

TriGirl

And this is why I recommend a maximum wage in this country. Figure out an equation that let's the highest earners keep no more than a certain multiplier of the a baseline (say, something based on basic necessities in the area such as housing and health care, with the poverty line taken into consideration).

This is a de facto standard in a number of countries and it seems to work just fine.

I think I'd maybe state it in different terms, but the basic concept remains the same. It shouldn't be a maximum wage, but rather a percentage range between highest and lowest paid employees (and contractors, let's please close THAT loophole). If a company wants to pay its CEO a quarter billion a year, fine. Just make sure they can also cover their lowest paid employees at say a 1:20th rate (just a ratio grabbed out of thin air, but you get the idea).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhreeZone 15]

quade

***And this is why I recommend a maximum wage in this country. Figure out an equation that let's the highest earners keep no more than a certain multiplier of the a baseline (say, something based on basic necessities in the area such as housing and health care, with the poverty line taken into consideration).

This is a de facto standard in a number of countries and it seems to work just fine.

I think I'd maybe state it in different terms, but the basic concept remains the same. It shouldn't be a maximum wage, but rather a percentage range between highest and lowest paid employees (and contractors, let's please close THAT loophole). If a company wants to pay its CEO a quarter billion a year, fine. Just make sure they can also cover their lowest paid employees at say a 1:20th rate (just a ratio grabbed out of thin air, but you get the idea).

If you really wanted to do that you also have to close off the stock gap that makes up such a large portion of Executive pay right now. Sure the CEO might only make 1.5 Million in his salary but he might also be granted 25,000 shares of restricted stock annually at a trading price of $80 so that's another 2 Million. Add in his ISO's and its easy to get a total comp package of 4-5 million a year. At a 20:1 ratio the lowest employee would need to make 75k if you count the 1.5M as his pay, if its the 5 million then its $250,000 It would be really easy for the executive team to reduce their salary to $500,000 ($25,000 at 20:1) and to get more stock instead and still get that 5 million per year. With the long term capital gains at 10% right now its actually way better to do it that way. Realistically it would be more likely to be more around 1000:1 if you really wanted to have congress ever look at it and that's only if Bernie would ever get serious traction. That would have an exec at a $20 million dollar a year cap while still paying wages that have a full time employee at min wage.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com