|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT |
Don't use "living wage". Use median wage instead.
Which has several advantages. It has a clear statistical definition. And it is
immune to the rich awarding themselves pay rises :-)
It's one of the definitions of "average" :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
The intent of using a living wage is to ensure that people
have enough money left after taxes to live on i.e. pay for
a mortgage or rent, buy a transporation vehicle, buy food
and clothing, healt care, etc. It really doesn't how you
define it as long as people can afford to live and not be
paupers, unless that is how they want to live.
There is too much economic disparity between the growing
number of rich and the decreasing number of "middle class"
citizens.
There is always talk about how the rich pay some percentage
if their income in taxes and it looks like a big number.
What isn't talked about is how much they have left.
Make 100 million and pay 35%. Wow! Thats 35 million!
But, they still have 65 million left, which is about 1300
times what it costs to live comfortably these days. One
can argue about the exact numbers, but the principle is
still the same. After all it is government's money.
The way things are now is that the government is helping
those who need it least at the expense of those who need
help the most.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|