Quote:
But poor people do buy $700 Iphones because it only cost them 25 bucks a month. Add this to the Starbucks coffee and other frivolous purchases they make and it adds up.
What are you basing that on? Obviously some poor people are doing this, but the original article you quoted specifically used an example of someone using a samsung with a cracked screen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/u...-chaffetz.html
Even if someone insisted on the apple brand they could get a used iphone 5 for about $200, which is a pittance compared to the recurring phone bills.
You could also argue that having a data plan is excessive but what purpose does it serve to criticize their spending habits? You're not teaching people to make better decisions by letting them be uninsured, you're just setting them up for a potential tragedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
I believe Henry Ford thought of that before you did. But what of those "lower level" of applicant, especially if the minimum wage is raised too high?
(My answer is a negative income tax of something like half of everything you fall short of 50K a year and no minimum wage at all.)
I would guess that pretty close to 100% of entrepreneurs who've had issues with employee retention have given this consideration. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to jobs where the cost of training and acquiring new employees is next to nothing.
A negative income tax / income subsidy doesn't work because it opens up a lot of really obvious ways to game the system.