Working in a coffee shop wage argument
Mostly just dropping this somewhere i can find it later, but also just valid to share
[media=https://youtu.be/qyIyT2qTtzY]
[media=https://youtu.be/qyIyT2qTtzY]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Service industries always take the hit when the economics is bad.
And then you see people in the U.S and other places praising the meteoric rise in fortunes when their favoured companies hit big numbers on their respective company share indexes.
Without giving so much as a second thought to the poor guy behind the counter having to work day long shifts because the company pay is so poor it's the only way they can afford to live.
And then you see people in the U.S and other places praising the meteoric rise in fortunes when their favoured companies hit big numbers on their respective company share indexes.
Without giving so much as a second thought to the poor guy behind the counter having to work day long shifts because the company pay is so poor it's the only way they can afford to live.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 If the company pay is so poor, why doesn't the employee just find a better job? Why doesn't he put his resume (with all his advanced college degrees) on Monster.com and start answering all the offers for six figure jobs, instead of wasting away in a low paying job? As far as working long hours, the richest corporate CEOS in America work 90 hour weeks like it's nothing.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@Reason10 because all companies in time of economic crisis all do the same thing.
It's never as simple as find somewhere better.
Because laws have been created to keep wages artificially low no matter where you work.
So if you're an employee the only choice (if you can call it that) ou have, is to play the tax game.
That means you cut your hours at your regular job and do something else elsewhere where you can pay less tax or take advantage of something else like reducing your travel costs or work nearer home to avoid things like parking charges and lunch costs etc.
It's never as simple as find somewhere better.
Because laws have been created to keep wages artificially low no matter where you work.
So if you're an employee the only choice (if you can call it that) ou have, is to play the tax game.
That means you cut your hours at your regular job and do something else elsewhere where you can pay less tax or take advantage of something else like reducing your travel costs or work nearer home to avoid things like parking charges and lunch costs etc.
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
@Picklebobble2 What do you mean by playing the tax game?
Does the UK not use a progressive income tax system?
Does the UK not use a progressive income tax system?
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2
What laws?
Here's the US Code:
https://uscode.house.gov/
If you are saying Congress passed laws to keep wages artificially low no matter where you work, NAME THE LAW. Do your homework. Look up the law right here. (The U.S. Code would be the federal version of state statutes.)
If you are saying a state legislature passed laws to keep wages artificially low, you're going to have to pick a state, and look up that state's statutes and find the law.
So your homework is: A. Find the law and present it here, or B. Admit you just made that shit up.
Because laws have been created to keep wages artificially low no matter where you work.
What laws?
Here's the US Code:
https://uscode.house.gov/
If you are saying Congress passed laws to keep wages artificially low no matter where you work, NAME THE LAW. Do your homework. Look up the law right here. (The U.S. Code would be the federal version of state statutes.)
If you are saying a state legislature passed laws to keep wages artificially low, you're going to have to pick a state, and look up that state's statutes and find the law.
So your homework is: A. Find the law and present it here, or B. Admit you just made that shit up.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 @Picklebobble2 For this portion of your lies:
First of all, that doesn't sound like something in the United States, but we did have a similar situation during most of the Seventies. It was called Bracket Creep. And the Reagan Tax Cuts ELIMINATED Bracket Creep.
First, here's the definition. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bracketcreep.asp
Bracket creep is a situation where inflation pushes income into higher tax brackets. The result is an increase in income taxes but no increase in real purchasing power. This is a problem during periods of high inflation, as income tax codes typically take longer to change than the rate of inflation.
And here's how REAGAN overcame it.
https://www.aei.org/articles/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed/
In 1984, a final good-government tax provision—indexing individual brackets for inflation and thereby eliminating bracket creep—was implemented. Although indexing reduced revenue, it was overpowered by surging economic growth.
Those tax cuts created the GREATEST economy of the 20th Century. A few idiots might LIE about that, but I just gave you proof.
In any case, your example is a little weak. If you are an employee, you have more choices than that. 1. You can play the tax game and continue to kid yourself. 2. If your skills are inferior and not worth any more money than you are making, you could go back to a trade school and learn a more marketable skill. People do that by the MILLIONS in America every year. 3. If your skills ARE superior and the company is not paying you what you think you are worth, you can always find another job. Your resume should be all it takes, IF YOU HAVE SUPERIOR SKILLS AND WORK HISTORY.
So if you're an employee the only choice (if you can call it that) ou have, is to play the tax game.
That means you cut your hours at your regular job and do something else elsewhere where you can pay less tax or take advantage of something else like reducing your travel costs or work nearer home to avoid things like parking charges and lunch costs etc.
That means you cut your hours at your regular job and do something else elsewhere where you can pay less tax or take advantage of something else like reducing your travel costs or work nearer home to avoid things like parking charges and lunch costs etc.
First of all, that doesn't sound like something in the United States, but we did have a similar situation during most of the Seventies. It was called Bracket Creep. And the Reagan Tax Cuts ELIMINATED Bracket Creep.
First, here's the definition. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bracketcreep.asp
Bracket creep is a situation where inflation pushes income into higher tax brackets. The result is an increase in income taxes but no increase in real purchasing power. This is a problem during periods of high inflation, as income tax codes typically take longer to change than the rate of inflation.
And here's how REAGAN overcame it.
https://www.aei.org/articles/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed/
In 1984, a final good-government tax provision—indexing individual brackets for inflation and thereby eliminating bracket creep—was implemented. Although indexing reduced revenue, it was overpowered by surging economic growth.
Those tax cuts created the GREATEST economy of the 20th Century. A few idiots might LIE about that, but I just gave you proof.
In any case, your example is a little weak. If you are an employee, you have more choices than that. 1. You can play the tax game and continue to kid yourself. 2. If your skills are inferior and not worth any more money than you are making, you could go back to a trade school and learn a more marketable skill. People do that by the MILLIONS in America every year. 3. If your skills ARE superior and the company is not paying you what you think you are worth, you can always find another job. Your resume should be all it takes, IF YOU HAVE SUPERIOR SKILLS AND WORK HISTORY.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 There is an easy solution. That poor worker just needs to post his resume on Monster.Com and a bunch of employers will IMMEDIATELY hire him/her starting out at six figures a year.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@ViciDraco You're only liable for tax if you earn over a certain amount.
So you do less hours paid at one job then go do something else where the benefits in working there outweigh the cash earnings.
So you do less hours paid at one job then go do something else where the benefits in working there outweigh the cash earnings.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@Reason10 Clearly you don't understand either economics nor the business of supply and demand nor the regular habits of what your own governments do in times of economic crisis.
It's a historical thing anytime a government chooses to align itself with business....that contributes to party funding, and they're scared of it drying up, they'll pick on the earner before they do that.
It's a historical thing anytime a government chooses to align itself with business....that contributes to party funding, and they're scared of it drying up, they'll pick on the earner before they do that.
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
@Picklebobble2 Ah. In the US when your tax bracket increases, you only pay the higher tax rate on money earned over when that bracket starts.
So if 0 to 10000 is 0% tax, 10001 to 20000 is 10% tax, and 20001+ is 20% tax (numbers chosen for easier math) earning 15000 would be a 500 dollar tax burden. Earning 20000 would be be a 1000 tax burden. Earning 20010 would be a 1002 dollar tax burden. You never lose money by making more, rather income becomes a system of diminishing returns. Unless it's long term investment income which is taxed at a generally lower rate than labor and short term investment income.
I don't know if many places in the US offer enough untaxed benefits that it would actually be worth splitting time between earnings job and benefits job.
So if 0 to 10000 is 0% tax, 10001 to 20000 is 10% tax, and 20001+ is 20% tax (numbers chosen for easier math) earning 15000 would be a 500 dollar tax burden. Earning 20000 would be be a 1000 tax burden. Earning 20010 would be a 1002 dollar tax burden. You never lose money by making more, rather income becomes a system of diminishing returns. Unless it's long term investment income which is taxed at a generally lower rate than labor and short term investment income.
I don't know if many places in the US offer enough untaxed benefits that it would actually be worth splitting time between earnings job and benefits job.