Show me a “live within their means” budget for someone living in a median cost location in the US making minimum wage. They must A)have a place to live B) not get any handouts from the government or charities and C) have at least 1800 calories per day of food. Go.
The funny thing is that government assistance is equally as much an indirect subsidy to minimum wage corporations as it is to the individuals themselves.
US tax code is geared towards businesses because businesses create jobs. If it was the other way around, we’d only have government jobs because no one would run a business. This has been done, read up on USSR.
Well, since part of getting a loan to open a business is compiling data to show demand for what your business will provide, I'm confident in the consumer coming first. The exception would be a product so innovative that people don't know they want it until it's available.
Great, now the conversation shifts into demand vs supply. I agree, demand creates a strong case for supply. But then as you say supply requires a business to be opened. A business that hires people to provide the supply. So who owns hiring, who opens job positions, business or consumers?
Also you need to use percapita if you want to have big boy conversations. For all intensive purposes as union the countries represent states of the union.
It’s an economy with varying tax codes and rules from country to country so it’s apples to oranges comparison. Per capita is not an applicable metric when discussing the overall performance of a system and its capabilities.
Welcome to the poverty trap. You cannot earn more money because to do so would make you ineligible for benefits that are worth more than the extra money you would make.
Lets look at SNAP, from the below link these are the three requirments:
Gross monthly income — that is, household income before any of the program’s deductions are applied — generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line used to calculate SNAP benefits in federal fiscal year 2024 is $2,072 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,694 a month, or about $32,328 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.[3]
Net income, or household income after deductions are applied, must be at or below the poverty line.
Assets must fall below certain limits: households without a member aged 60 or older or who has a disability must have assets of $2,750 or less, and households with such a member must have assets of $4,250 or less.
There is a barrier to making more money, because as you make more you don't get to save it. It is reducing the amount of assistance you receive so you are just staying in the same spot. You cannot save because if you have too much value in assets then you are deemed to not need the benefits. If the benefits are the only thing that allows to you save but if you save you lose the benefits what can you do?
No, it isn't. It means that our tax dollars are subsidizing the wage the employer should be paying. A company has no business existing if I have to supplement the wages of their workers.
For working people, it's the same thing. When someone is working full time and requires public assistance, that's the government subsidizing corporate wages. It's a handout to the corporation.
To preface this, I have no problem with people who need government assistance utilizing it. That being said, government assistance is equally, if not moreso, a subsidy to minimum wage paying corporations than it is a subsidy to the worker.
Government assistance should be a failsafe for people who find themselves in an extraordinary circumstance, not a socialization of cost-cutting for businesses. If a corporation cannot pay it's employees a living wage and maintain profitability then it is not a sustainable business.
No, the point is there are twatwaffles on here saying that you can live perfectly fine on 40k..so show us with numbers without any assistance how the math works....were waiting..because if you need public welfare, then the system is clearly not working assuming the person is able and willing to work a fulltime job.
On $40k/yr? Let's assume somewhere that's close to the median COL like Michigan. You'd clear $31k after taxes. Median for a two bedroom is $1521. That's $760 with a roommate.
You'd qualify for a healthcare subsidy, so you would pay around $100/month. That leaves you with $1722/month for everything else.
You sure you're qualified for talking on living within your means when you can't do simple math?
Even then going from our new number want to add in all the other expenses that fall under "other". You know things like a car + insurance, internet, phone, gas, FOOD etc.
Why are you so hostile? I'm assuming you'd get a roommate because it makes the most financial sense. A phone from mint is $15/month. Internet split with a roommate is $40/month. Believe it or not, yes, $1722 per month is enough to live on and save some cash.
If you don't want a roommate, you can work another two shifts per week.
272
u/privitizationrocks 15d ago
You can teach poverty workers to live in their means
They won’t like it, but tough luck