03-23-2017, 11:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2017, 11:15 AM by danbrotherston.)
(03-23-2017, 10:05 AM)MidTowner Wrote: No, like I said, I wasn't disagreeing with your idea, I don't have a strong opinion about it (though I'm enjoying the conversation about it). I was just pointing out that the current system is not discriminatory (but might have bad outcomes) as you stated; your idea would be discriminatory (but might have better outcomes).
How would your last idea work for people who, say, don't earn any employment income? If you just live off of dividends, your hourly pay is zero?
Simply, I would define hourly pay by your yearly income divided by 52 * 40 (or 37.5) or one year of work. Would probably cover the 99%. But I admit, I haven't run the numbers or really thought too deeply about it. But this is generally how salaried employees have their wages compared with hourly employees anyway.
Of course, this doesn't even touch on issues of "wealth" vs. "income". I realize many high income people live paycheque to paycheque as well. But honestly, we're getting into the weeds of our societal problems.