So, what did happen in 2016?

[Fate]

Government services costs money. I think it's obscene to have any citizen not pay at least a nominal amount of federal income tax. You shouldn't get to be on Medicare and draw a social security check unless you pay into the system.

If you're making between 15k - 30k yearly then you're barely paying federal income tax as it is. Standard deduction plus personal exemption is around 10k. So your effective rate is probably around ~8.3%. If you have any dependents then you may be getting net money back from the government on federal income tax in the form of EITC. SS+Medicare is another 7.65%. State income tax varies greatly but let's say 6%. Total ~22% effective tax.

If one of your minimum wage workers isn't happy going home with 78 cents for every dollar they earn they need a reality check... no other dollar earned is going to get taxed less. There's nothing special in the tax code that I know of that screws over people in the 15k-30k income range.

[sbr]

One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy.  The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO.  Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive.  I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld.  If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay.  Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes.  It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers.  (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate.  I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT.  She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT.  So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)

You both are overlooking how withholding works.  Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year.  But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.

Yep.

Luckily the gal who does payroll for the company I work for is awesome and she doesn't even bat an eye at us all constantly changing our withholdings on our W-4s.  When I know I have a lot of OT coming I will change my allowances to 99 for the duration.

[dps]

One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy.  The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO.  Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive.  I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld.  If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay.  Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes.  It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers.  (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate.  I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT.  She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT.  So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)

You both are overlooking how withholding works.  Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year.  But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.

I'm not overlooking that (though the employees who turned down the OT might have been).  But it's still asking them to work extra in a week and not see any significant gain for it until they file their taxes the next year.  And in the particular case of the employee I sat down with and looked at her paystub, I was going to let her get 10-20 hours OT every week, so her yearly income would have been roughly 52 times that week's pay.

Just to be clear, I do agree with you that getting OT certainly does pay in the long run, and I do generally take OT when it's offered to me (when I don't, I don't turn it down for economic reasons, but for having other commitments/errands/obligations to attend to, or just not wanting to stay at work any longer than necessary). 

[Admiral Yi]

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can make $15 for 12 hours of OT net of withholding.

[Josquius]

Explain. You'd think there are more consumers today than ever before.

Industrial efficiency has got to the level where the work of 1 worker provides X for 100 consumers.
There just isn't enough "stuff"  to be built to give each of those 100 a job that lets them all buy X.  Especially considering massively unequal income distribution.

If you ever took an economics course, write for a refund.

The problem isn't insufficient demand; demand is infinite.  The problem is that the service sector jobs that are all that are available for a number of people in post-industrial economies don't pay well enough to support the lifestyle the people in thosse countries thinks to be their birthright.  Raising the minimum wage isn't the solution; it just encourages further automation of service sector jobs.

Untrue.
I have a TV.  Why do I need another one?
Maybe I'll want something bigger and better at some point?  Maybe my current one will break?
Even though I may have the money to buy a new TV every month my demand is not infinite.

It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed.  One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.

[Admiral Yi]

It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed.  One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.

That's not the logic of trickle down and it's not the flaw. 

The logic of trickle down is that the rich will save and invest more in plant and equipment, creating more jobs and higher productivity.

The flaw is that capital is globally mobile.

[PJL]

Actually trickle down does work, it's just that due to the global mobility of capital, the poor that benefited wasn't in the same country where the tax cuts were made.

[The Brain]

White poors hate brown poors. Film at 11.

[MadImmortalMan]

Probably the only long-term solution is a guaranteed income, combined with free health coverage.

How would you compensate for the degradation of purchasing power for the guaranteed income? It sounds like a poverty trap.

[grumbler]

One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy.  The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO.  Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive.  I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld.  If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay.  Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes.  It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers.  (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate.  I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT.  She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT.  So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)

You both are overlooking how withholding works.  Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year.  But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.

And, even then, the higher tax rate is only on the amount by which income exceeds the lower tax rate.  It is preposterous that she got paid for 12 ours of overtime and saw only $15 in extra income, unless she was making way below the minimum wage.

[grumbler]

Untrue.
I have a TV.  Why do I need another one?
Maybe I'll want something bigger and better at some point?  Maybe my current one will break?
Even though I may have the money to buy a new TV every month my demand is not infinite.

It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed.  One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.

Demand the refund.  Don't take no for an answer.   Every word you write indicates an even deeper ignorance of basic economics.

Why would you not want an infinite number of TVs, if there was no cost whatever attached to obtaining and owning TVs?  Imagine this scenario:  a representative of The magical TV Company comes up to you and offers you any number of TVs you want, up to and including an infinite amount of them.  These magical TVs cost nothing to run.  If you want to give away TVs, you can, and the MTC will deliver them, free of charge and using non-polluting magical delivery methods, to anyone anywhere (and to as many anyones as you care to name, in any quantity per person).  Broken or outdated TVs will be replaced free of charge, but they will also come out of your allotment.  Any TVs you don't want right now will be stored free of charge (or, more likely, just not be created yet), but the total number you ask for right now is the total you will ever have under this deal.

So, name your number, from zero to infinite.

Would anyone NOT ask for an infinite number of TVs?  If you think so, explain why.

What keeps you from acquiring an infinite number of TV sets now is a limited supply, not a limited demand.

[grumbler]

Probably the only long-term solution is a guaranteed income, combined with free health coverage.

How would you compensate for the degradation of purchasing power for the guaranteed income? It sounds like a poverty trap.

You use English words here, but not in a combination I understand.  What does "degradation of purchasing power" mean in this context?

[MadImmortalMan]

People get X amount guaranteed income. As a result, the amount of stuff X buys decreases over time.

Do you just keep making X bigger or what?

[garbon]

Untrue.
I have a TV.  Why do I need another one?
Maybe I'll want something bigger and better at some point?  Maybe my current one will break?
Even though I may have the money to buy a new TV every month my demand is not infinite.

It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed.  One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.

Demand the refund.  Don't take no for an answer.   Every word you write indicates an even deeper ignorance of basic economics.

Why would you not want an infinite number of TVs, if there was no cost whatever attached to obtaining and owning TVs?  Imagine this scenario:  a representative of The magical TV Company comes up to you and offers you any number of TVs you want, up to and including an infinite amount of them.  These magical TVs cost nothing to run.  If you want to give away TVs, you can, and the MTC will deliver them, free of charge and using non-polluting magical delivery methods, to anyone anywhere (and to as many anyones as you care to name, in any quantity per person).  Broken or outdated TVs will be replaced free of charge, but they will also come out of your allotment.  Any TVs you don't want right now will be stored free of charge (or, more likely, just not be created yet), but the total number you ask for right now is the total you will ever have under this deal.

So, name your number, from zero to infinite.

Would anyone NOT ask for an infinite number of TVs?  If you think so, explain why.

What keeps you from acquiring an infinite number of TV sets now is a limited supply, not a limited demand.

I can think of plenty of real world reasons not to want to accept that offer but then, I'm not the one being 'schooled' right now.

[garbon]

People get X amount guaranteed income. As a result, the amount of stuff X buys decreases over time.

Do you just keep making X bigger or what?

That doesn't really seem like a very big problem. After all, in theory, people's salaries (as well as welfare allotments) should increase year over year so why wouldn't a guaranteed income...particularly if the guaranteed income was setup to ensure people had a certain standard of living in one's country?