|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 9, 2020 15:26:53 GMT
I believe that Germany uses a income based system for their motor vehicle fines. The more money someone makes, the higher the fines. I remember a number of years ago that they issued a speeding ticket that carried a $38,000 fine.
The problem with the current US system is that a set fine is a lot more impact on someone making poverty level vs a multi-millionaire. A $150 fine is 0.5% of the annual income of someone who makes $30,000/year. Or 0.05% of someone who makes $300,000/year, and 0.005% of someone who makes $3M/year So the deterrent factor is less, the more money you make. To someone rich, a fine is not a deterrent, it's an annoyance
A idea: Crime fines should be defined as a percentage of income rather than a set amount. So on conviction, the guilty will be required to submit a copy of their latest tax return and the fine will be assessed based on it. To eliminate the tax games that people play, all fines are based on gross, pre-adjusted income.* So the new fine becomes 0.5% of pre-adjusted income. Really, it's as fair as you can get. It takes the same size chunk out of every person's income, regardless of their income. For those with no income, the fine would go on their guardians. Whomever is listed as supporting them as dependents.
I personally think is is much more equal way than the current system.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 9, 2020 15:55:27 GMT
I believe that Germany uses a income based system for their motor vehicle fines. The more money someone makes, the higher the fines. I remember a number of years ago that they issued a speeding ticket that carried a $38,000 fine. The problem with the current US system is that a set fine is a lot more impact on someone making poverty level vs a multi-millionaire. A $150 fine is 0.5% of the annual income of someone who makes $30,000/year. Or 0.05% of someone who makes $300,000/year, and 0.005% of someone who makes $3M/year So the deterrent factor is less, the more money you make. To someone rich, a fine is not a deterrent, it's an annoyance A idea: Crime fines should be defined as a percentage of income rather than a set amount. So on conviction, the guilty will be required to submit a copy of their latest tax return and the fine will be assessed based on it. To eliminate the tax games that people play, all fines are based on gross, pre-adjusted income.* So the new fine becomes 0.5% of pre-adjusted income. Really, it's as fair as you can get. It takes the same size chunk out of every person's income, regardless of their income. For those with no income, the fine would go on their guardians. Whomever is listed as supporting them as dependents. I personally think is is much more equal way than the current system. The UK uses a system of bands of severity of the speeding offence A,B &C depending on how fast you were going and what the speed limit and the income you have, but capped to a maximum. The lowest level is 50% of weekly income, then 100% up to 125% of income, plus of course points on the licence.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2020 16:21:24 GMT
at that point, one could also scale for repeat offenses. but yes, thre re european countries that already do this in one form or another, and I think the headline fine was something like $100,000.00 ( I looked it up - try a quarter million dollars, US.) nyc.streetsblog.org/2010/01/08/the-290000-speeding-ticket/
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 9, 2020 16:22:38 GMT
This idea comes from NYC. they are experimenting with the idea of wealth weighted fine structures for minor infractions. the immediate response was that it is bad, because then poor people, no longer having to pay fines, would be free to commit minor infractions with impunity. also that it is bad, because it is unfair to rich people because now the fines on them will be enough that they aren't free to commit minor infractions for pocket change. a more valid complaint is that since NYC is basing it on the honor system, people WILL be gaming the system. so here is the thought - if you base fines or infractions that essentially make the fine a sin tax - like parking violations, noise violations, or littering; but NOT material crimes like theft or endangerment crimes like drunk driving - on a number of hours of income instead of a flat dollar amount, will it produce a broader base of compliance. let's assume we can come up with a reasonable way to minimize gaming the system - and includes both work income and investment income to find an average hourly income. would this produce a more equitable deterrent to such infractions? would having an option to exchange actual work for the fine make a difference? This is based on the system of fines used in Finland. There fines are based on an individuals income, so in essence the % of income and the effects on the individual remain the same. To give an example; Lets say the fixed fine for a minor driving offense is $1500. For most low to mid income families in the US this would be devastating as it would be a significant percentage of their income. For a higher income family it would be nothing. So family one ends up paying, and suffering, for an extended period while family two is paying the amount off the same day and them forgetting about the whole thing. Under the Finish system when convicted both parties would be required to provide full financial regarding income, expenditure and savings. From there the court calculates how much the convicted can afford to pay without putting them in serious financial straits based on their disposable income. So the lower income family may be fined $500, the high income family $2500 for the same offense. But those fines would constitute the same percentage of their disposable income and have the same economic effect.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2020 1:53:23 GMT
the latest darling of the progressives is the Universal Basic Income. the theory is that the government will pay EVERYBODY a subsistence level wage so that nobody HAS to work to live. they propose to pay for it with higher income taxes on people who DO want to work.
the two most obvious issues are: first, this is even outside the most idealistic principles of communism and socialism - why should people who want to work be obligated to support people who don't. second: the cost of living will likely increase to match the UBI.
I can also see this producing a permanent dependent class.
what other problems can you see with this idea? I can come up with more, but don't want to bias the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2020 12:42:07 GMT
the latest darling of the progressives is the Universal Basic Income. the theory is that the government will pay EVERYBODY a subsistence level wage so that nobody HAS to work to live. they propose to pay for it with higher income taxes on people who DO want to work. the two most obvious issues are: first, this is even outside the most idealistic principles of communism and socialism - why should people who want to work be obligated to support people who don't. second: the cost of living will likely increase to match the UBI. I can also see this producing a permanent dependent class. what other problems can you see with this idea? I can come up with more, but don't want to bias the conversation. I just don’t see how any system that penalize success and rewards laziness is going to work out well. Yes, we need safety nets to help those that fall on hard times, but if the entire society is held up by those nets, they’re going to become very frail and fail to support anyone.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 2, 2020 13:25:19 GMT
NPR's Planet Money did a report on Finland's Experiment with Universal Basic Income. The results for trails that have been done so far did not live up to the hype. www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/22/552850245/episode-796-the-basic-income-experimentIt doesn't do much to encourage people to get jobs. It helps with some people, but others it was a pay cut over existing programs like unemployment insurance and welfare. The biggest question is doing it on a national scale is how do you cover the sheer cost of it? Where does the money for it come from? You could take people, only turn around and give it back to them. That just seams needlessly complicated on the average person. If you tax businesses, you slow the whole economy and make it harder for people to get hired. Some people argue that it would help to save money by eliminating government bureaucracy (unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.) but that is not how government works. You replace one bureaucracy with another and in the end, the cost is the same for the average tax payer. The other problem is that in a country as diverse as the US, defining that that basic income level is basically impossible. The minimum wage needed to live varies greatly from place to place. If you just consider enough money to cover basic rent, food and utilities, for someone living in suburban Indiana that amount could be $12,000 a year. However, for someone living in Brooklyn NY, that number is likely yo be $30,000 to $40,000 to cover the same stuff. Who is right? If you go off of "average" person in the US, then you are doing very little to help people in high cost of living areas. If you use high COL to set your rate, then most of the nation is going to live very well. And if you have a graduated system, then everyone will complain. Another argument I have seen is that if you have UBI, then you can/should repeal minimum wage laws. Minimum wave is redundant in this case because everyone is already guaranteed a basic income. It is now not up to employers to do so, so employers can now be free to pay whatever they want. On one hand, that could be very good for businesses that employs level people, but what sort of worker exploitation can then be introduced?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2020 14:54:57 GMT
NPR's Planet Money did a report on Finland's Experiment with Universal Basic Income. The results for trails that have been done so far did not live up to the hype. www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/22/552850245/episode-796-the-basic-income-experimentIt doesn't do much to encourage people to get jobs. It helps with some people, but others it was a pay cut over existing programs like unemployment insurance and welfare. The biggest question is doing it on a national scale is how do you cover the sheer cost of it? Where does the money for it come from? You could take people, only turn around and give it back to them. That just seams needlessly complicated on the average person. If you tax businesses, you slow the whole economy and make it harder for people to get hired. Some people argue that it would help to save money by eliminating government bureaucracy (unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.) but that is not how government works. You replace one bureaucracy with another and in the end, the cost is the same for the average tax payer. The other problem is that in a country as diverse as the US, defining that that basic income level is basically impossible. The minimum wage needed to live varies greatly from place to place. If you just consider enough money to cover basic rent, food and utilities, for someone living in suburban Indiana that amount could be $12,000 a year. However, for someone living in Brooklyn NY, that number is likely yo be $30,000 to $40,000 to cover the same stuff. Who is right? If you go off of "average" person in the US, then you are doing very little to help people in high cost of living areas. If you use high COL to set your rate, then most of the nation is going to live very well. And if you have a graduated system, then everyone will complain. Another argument I have seen is that if you have UBI, then you can/should repeal minimum wage laws. Minimum wave is redundant in this case because everyone is already guaranteed a basic income. It is now not up to employers to do so, so employers can now be free to pay whatever they want. On one hand, that could be very good for businesses that employs level people, but what sort of worker exploitation can then be introduced? there is also potential for the opposite to happen - if enough people leave the workforce, the work won't do itself, and so people who are good workers will be able to force employers to bid for their services.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2020 15:02:18 GMT
The benefits that all people receive, whether it’s from wages or social handouts, ends up being paid for by the overall productivity of the country. Reducing the workforce will lower that productivity and everyone is going to suffer. No matter how you slice the pie, a smaller pie will result in smaller slices for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 2, 2020 15:44:26 GMT
there is also potential for the opposite to happen - if enough people leave the workforce, the work won't do itself, and so people who are good workers will be able to force employers to bid for their services. It could go a couple different ways. 1. Increased wages to attract labor. This will result in higher prices to cover the additional labor costs. How much is a question, but it has to come from somewhere. 2. Lack of workforce spurs investment in automation. Computers, AI, and robotics get used to make up for the lack of available work force. We are seeing that now with the tight labor market. When there simply are not enough labor, you find ways around it. Historically, automation has not killed the job market, it has merely changed the market and resulted in more and more demand for high skilled labor. I will however, say that too much of a drop in people willing to work for entry level pay, could force automation to the point where it is no longer economical to hire entry level people and only need people for high skill positions. This could create a backfire effect with UBI. While everyone has a base salary, the jobs that remain are high enough skilled that you create a significant barrier to employment for people. This is a extreme case and the liklyhood of this is very low. Using the modern economy as an example, you see both happening. Even in the companies I have worked for. They are raising wages, but also bringing in automation to maximize the workforce they have. So far there is a good balance, but who knows what will give first if the economy were to tank. One way that things could get interesting is if you have UBI, but you eliminate the minimum wage laws. Employers can now factor in the UBI to a persons compensation. Let say you have a business that employs someone at $15K/year. UBI comes out that they get $10K/year from the government. An employer can look at it and that they will cut the person's pay to $7.5K/year. To the employee, they would actually be getting a $2.5K raise overall for gross take home pay and the business could hire a 2nd person at 7.5K/year for the same labor costs, but be able to get twice as much productivity. That could rally spur business, but the question is would workers accept the cut to the paycheck even if they are making more in the long run? Downside to that is someone working 2 jobs could get screwed. If both employers take the UBI out of their income, the worker cold see an overall drop in their gross income.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2020 16:44:56 GMT
there is also potential for the opposite to happen - if enough people leave the workforce, the work won't do itself, and so people who are good workers will be able to force employers to bid for their services. It could go a couple different ways. 1. Increased wages to attract labor. This will result in higher prices to cover the additional labor costs. How much is a question, but it has to come from somewhere. 2. Lack of workforce spurs investment in automation. Computers, AI, and robotics get used to make up for the lack of available work force. We are seeing that now with the tight labor market. When there simply are not enough labor, you find ways around it. Historically, automation has not killed the job market, it has merely changed the market and resulted in more and more demand for high skilled labor. I will however, say that too much of a drop in people willing to work for entry level pay, could force automation to the point where it is no longer economical to hire entry level people and only need people for high skill positions. This could create a backfire effect with UBI. While everyone has a base salary, the jobs that remain are high enough skilled that you create a significant barrier to employment for people. This is a extreme case and the liklyhood of this is very low. Using the modern economy as an example, you see both happening. Even in the companies I have worked for. They are raising wages, but also bringing in automation to maximize the workforce they have. So far there is a good balance, but who knows what will give first if the economy were to tank. One way that things could get interesting is if you have UBI, but you eliminate the minimum wage laws. Employers can now factor in the UBI to a persons compensation. Let say you have a business that employs someone at $15K/year. UBI comes out that they get $10K/year from the government. An employer can look at it and that they will cut the person's pay to $7.5K/year. To the employee, they would actually be getting a $2.5K raise overall for gross take home pay and the business could hire a 2nd person at 7.5K/year for the same labor costs, but be able to get twice as much productivity. That could rally spur business, but the question is would workers accept the cut to the paycheck even if they are making more in the long run? Downside to that is someone working 2 jobs could get screwed. If both employers take the UBI out of their income, the worker cold see an overall drop in their gross income. one of the reasins the job market appears tight, is people are already refusing to work for entry wages. at the same time, unless things have changed, which I haven't seen any signs of, productivity is still trending well up, while compensation is trending well down. in fact, that is part of what people are proposing UBI as a cure for. however, taxes WILL have to go up - because paying the entire country welfare WILL cost more than paying roughly third of the country welfare, no matter how much more efficient you can make the process. which means that it is more likely that instead of reducing or eliminating minimum wage, instead it will be that the hypothetical 15K.yr worker gets 10K in UBI and 15K in wages, and then pays 7.5K in taxes. a 25K/yr worker would now get 10K in UBI, and 25K in salary, and pay 12.5K in taxes. and so on. it quickly becomes apparent that tax avoidance will become a major industry. and resentment of the UBI will quickly become a major issue for the working class.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2020 17:10:34 GMT
Worker compensation is up, not down. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median wage for workers in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2019 was $936 per week or $48,672 per year. Wages were 4% higher than on the same date for the previous year.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 2, 2020 18:12:24 GMT
one of the reasins the job market appears tight, is people are already refusing to work for entry wages. at the same time, unless things have changed, which I haven't seen any signs of, productivity is still trending well up, while compensation is trending well down. in fact, that is part of what people are proposing UBI as a cure for. however, taxes WILL have to go up - because paying the entire country welfare WILL cost more than paying roughly third of the country welfare, no matter how much more efficient you can make the process. which means that it is more likely that instead of reducing or eliminating minimum wage, instead it will be that the hypothetical 15K.yr worker gets 10K in UBI and 15K in wages, and then pays 7.5K in taxes. a 25K/yr worker would now get 10K in UBI, and 25K in salary, and pay 12.5K in taxes. and so on. it quickly becomes apparent that tax avoidance will become a major industry. and resentment of the UBI will quickly become a major issue for the working class. In my area, the reason why people don't want to take minimum wage jobs is that there are too many entry level jobs that offer a fair amount more. Average starting wage is $2-3/hr above local minimum wage*, with various bonus or raise schemes that have beeping getting ~$5/hr above minimum wage or more within the first year or less. Having been trying in the position to hire people, the people worth hiring are already making more than min wage. You have to be careful with the ones who are taking real minimum wage jobs. They are the ones that are not employable at higher wage entry level positions. They have drug, attendance, legal, or other issues that make them less desirable candidates. If you want good workers, you HAVE to be competitive in your pay scales, otherwise no one will work for you, and the people you have will leave to go somewhere else where they will make more money. Between the tight labor market, and Maryland's high minimum wage, you basically have to offer close to double the federal minimum wage if you want descent employees. I do agree UBI will mean a HUGE increase in taxes from somewhere to cover the cost. If you assume a wage equivalent to the federal minimum wage for a 2000 man hour work year, that gives $14,500 per person for everyone one 18 or older. That means you have an additional $4.2 Trillion added to the federal spending per year. Considering the current budget is $7.71T, that will be over 50% raise in federal spending. That is going to have to come from somewhere. Whether it's businesses or individuals, it's gonna be a big tax hike. That is going to give lots of people incentive to try to find ways to avoid taxes. Those taxes are going to be a the biggest burden on the middle class population or small or middle size businesses. The people/companies who make enough to pay lots of taxes but are not rich enough to hire people to find clever ways to get out of having to pay them. So it's going to be people like you and me that end up paying the most. *Keep in mind that Maryland has a higher than average minimum wage. Federal Minimum wage is $7.25/hr. Maryland minimum wage is $11.00/Hr.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2020 1:32:56 GMT
Worker compensation is up, not down. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median wage for workers in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2019 was $936 per week or $48,672 per year. Wages were 4% higher than on the same date for the previous year. that would be all well and good except that pesky cost of living keeps going up, too.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 3, 2020 1:51:25 GMT
Worker compensation is up, not down. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median wage for workers in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2019 was $936 per week or $48,672 per year. Wages were 4% higher than on the same date for the previous year. that would be all well and good except that pesky cost of living keeps going up, too. According to the Social Security administration, the cost of living increase during all of 2019 was 1.6%. The inflation rate was listed as 1.76%.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2020 2:08:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 3, 2020 2:30:04 GMT
I’m just stating the facts as best as I can find them. How individuals want to interpret those facts is beyond my control and understanding. Based on most people I have personally talked to, the general feeling is they are doing better the last few years than they were. Based on my own income, things haven’t changed much in the past 20 years. But keep in mind, I am self-employed and my boss is about as stingy as they come.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2020 3:51:25 GMT
I’m just stating the facts as best as I can find them. How individuals want to interpret those facts is beyond my control and understanding. Based on most people I have personally talked to, the general feeling is they are doing better the last few years than they were. Based on my own income, things haven’t changed much in the past 20 years. But keep in mind, I am self-employed and my boss is about as stingy as they come. I'm also doing decently for the time being. we're in the interval between paying off the machine for the car wash, and the machine costing more to maintain than to pay off. I'm getting away with postponing the scheduled replacement on my computer. the houses haven't needed major repairs recently. the renters continue to be unexciting. the truck hasn't had any major breakdowns. but still, I'm stating the facts as I have found them. and the facts I have found are that worker productivity is up, but wages are not increasing as fast as the cost of living is.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 15, 2020 14:33:50 GMT
national sick leave: with the news that most bottom tier American can't AFFORD to take time off work when they are sick. (which isn't news to much of anybody who rubs shoulders with the working class) and all the reasons given by employers why they couldn't possibly provide paid sick leave programs (some being more relevant than others) perhaps we should adopt a national sick leave program: all employers pay into a federal sick leave program, based on their total payroll (employees with employer paid sick leave may be exempted, though employers might find it more economical to discontinue paid sick leave) when an employee takes sick leave, the employer submits a pay stub showing the lost hours due to sick leave, and the program pays the employee for their lost time. in an extended illness, the pay may be prearranged, which may be beneficial for paying medical care.
the question will, of course, come up of abuse, which one option would be to simply write into the program that each employee gets40 hours per year allowance with no questions asked - which may be used for personal days or vacation days if the employee desires - and more than 40 hours in aggregate does require confirmation from a third party.
and again - remember this is an idea to reduce the likelihood of having a burger stacker coughing on your buns.
(also, the reason for it being a national program is to have the biggest risk pool and the smallest profit motive)
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2020 14:38:25 GMT
national sick leave: with the news that most bottom tier American can't AFFORD to take time off work when they are sick. (which isn't news to much of anybody who rubs shoulders with the working class) and all the reasons given by employers why they couldn't possibly provide paid sick leave programs (some being more relevant than others) perhaps we should adopt a national sick leave program: all employers pay into a federal sick leave program, based on their total payroll (employees with employer paid sick leave may be exempted, though employers might find it more economical to discontinue paid sick leave) when an employee takes sick leave, the employer submits a pay stub showing the lost hours due to sick leave, and the program pays the employee for their lost time. in an extended illness, the pay may be prearranged, which may be beneficial for paying medical care. the question will, of course, come up of abuse, which one option would be to simply write into the program that each employee gets40 hours per year allowance with no questions asked - which may be used for personal days or vacation days if the employee desires - and more than 40 hours in aggregate does require confirmation from a third party. and again - remember this is an idea to reduce the likelihood of having a burger stacker coughing on your buns. (also, the reason for it being a national program is to have the biggest risk pool and the smallest profit motive) Isn’t that sort of what the federal Workmen’s Compensation taxes are supposed to be covering already?
|
|