Tax hike + minimum wage increase = moot point?

[Von Ribbentrop]

Originally posted by: techs

One of the little known benefits of an increase in the minimum wage is the savings on government programs like food stamps, medicaid, etc. Plus it improves the health of the lowest classses and their educational attainment. It is also the greatest possible stimulus to the economy.

This doesn't makes sense. Please explain.

An increase in the minmum wage will not abolish food stamps and other government welfare progams. It might look better on paper but the bottom line is still the bottom line.
inflation will see to that.

How will it improve the health and education of the lowest classes?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Von Ribbentrop
Originally posted by: techs

One of the little known benefits of an increase in the minimum wage is the savings on government programs like food stamps, medicaid, etc. Plus it improves the health of the lowest classses and their educational attainment. It is also the greatest possible stimulus to the economy.

This doesn't makes sense. Please explain.

An increase in the minmum wage will not abolish food stamps and other government welfare progams. It might look better on paper but the bottom line is still the bottom line.
inflation will see to that.

How will it improve the health and education of the lowest classes?

I don't understand why it is not obvious. The amount of food stamps is dependent on your income. Your income goes up, you get less food stamps. All other government programs that help the working poor also are determined by income. So more income for the poor working class, less government aid. Quite simple.
As to health and eduction. When people struggling to pay their bills have a medical problem they often delay treatment. By giving the working poor more money they can now afford to get health problems treated earlier. As to education, it allows families to purchase more schools supplies for their kids, like computers, books, etc. That gives their kids a better education.
And as to a raise in the minimum wage causing a rise in prices, well we are talking a relatively small amount overall in the economy. I didn't hear anyone complaining that tax cuts for the rich raised prices.

 

[Von Ribbentrop]

Originally posted by: techs

don't understand why it is not obvious. The amount of food stamps is dependent on your income. Your income goes up, you get less food stamps. All other government programs that help the working poor also are determined by income. So more income for the poor working class, less government aid. Quite simple.

If you could raise the minimum wage without any consequences then what you say would make sense.

But the bottom line is still the bottom line (Poverty). If what you say is true than let's raise the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour and close all welfare programs down.

The statement above was my first thought. In reality that still woundn't fix the problem because inflation would again rear it's ugly head. All you'd be doing is raising the amount of the poverty line, not do away with it.

If wages are increased, then the cost of goods and services will increase.

This is the reason that it's not obvious.

 

[nergee]

....."The amount of food stamps is dependent on your income. Your income goes up, you get less food stamps. All other government programs that help the working poor also are determined by income."

this is exactly why people choose to stay on welfare......raise the minimum wage enough so the poor can make more working than on welfare and then they will do it...This token increase the hacks propose in D.C. is meaningless.....

 

[Jhhnn]

What sort of "link" can you offer up between union contracts and minimum wage, vonribbentrop? I'm a union member, and I've never heard of such a thing... my contract states that I'll receive X pay and Y benefits during a certain period of time, provided my performance is acceptable and my employer stays in business...

Any sort of "link" seems kinda like linking the former Iraqi regime to terrorism.... or linking the hpv vaccine to promiscuity... mere propaganda...

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What sort of "link" can you offer up between union contracts and minimum wage, vonribbentrop? I'm a union member, and I've never heard of such a thing... my contract states that I'll receive X pay and Y benefits during a certain period of time, provided my performance is acceptable and my employer stays in business...

Any sort of "link" seems kinda like linking the former Iraqi regime to terrorism.... or linking the hpv vaccine to promiscuity... mere propaganda...

Same happened with me when I was in a local union of a supermarket. Minimum wage increased in NYS, but I didn't see another dime since I was making $1.50 more than the new minimum wage. The only people who saw their pay go up were the ones making $5.15-$6.00 /hr.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What sort of "link" can you offer up between union contracts and minimum wage, vonribbentrop? I'm a union member, and I've never heard of such a thing... my contract states that I'll receive X pay and Y benefits during a certain period of time, provided my performance is acceptable and my employer stays in business...

Any sort of "link" seems kinda like linking the former Iraqi regime to terrorism.... or linking the hpv vaccine to promiscuity... mere propaganda...

Same happened with me when I was in a local union of a supermarket. Minimum wage increased in NYS, but I didn't see another dime since I was making $1.50 more than the new minimum wage. The only people who saw their pay go up were the ones making $5.15-$6.00 /hr.

I've seen estimates of 2% directly affected and 4% in the ripple effect.

Union contracts might increase when re-negotiated.

 

[Arkaign]

As usual (I've been guilty of this often), each side tends to overstate the benefits and consequences of these issues.

I think the minimum wage increase will have certain benefits for the lowest income bracket folks, but that at least some of that increased income will be balanced by some increased costs related closely to the increased costs of doing business.

I don't think it's all wonderful, or all bad either. It's probably a decent idea now that it's been so long since the last hike, which didn't cause anything that great or than bad anyway.

 

[Craig234]

Arkaign, a couple of common sense points to consider:

- How much inflation? With estimates of the people affected by the increase at 2% direct, and 4% a lesser 'ripple effect', you are at 6% getting the full or partial increase; given how they make so little of the total wages, that must be under 1% of the total wages; and we're only talking about the inflationary portion, the ~20% increase, so we're down to <0.2%; and finally, wages are not the only factor in the price of goods, so we're talking about a fraction of that <0.2% as a possible inflationary pressure. This is an extremely low amount of inflation to worry about.

- In contrast, compare the fact that virtually 100% of the increase at that level is spent back into the economy, while at the top end, the vastshare of the increase in income to the most wealthy goes straight into their increasing their assets, their share of the wealth of society they own. It simply shifts the pie in their favor, rather than stimulating the economy.

This is why there are so many examples of increases to the minimum wage increasing employment rather than harming it, and reducing poverty, helping the middle class.

 

[Arkaign]

I agree with you, I'm of the opinion that the overall benefit is worth it

I do also realize that there are some negatives, but I think that the +'s outnumber the net -'s on this ..

Anyhow :beer:

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Why do they need an excuse for that? It's just a fact of life that we are in the middle of a war and running huge deficits now. Someone has to pay for all of that.

Well, if Bush is such a big spender like all the libs claim (which I agree with by the way) why don't they just cut all the crap that he has allowed to go through?

It would do very little to help an extra 300 billion in deficit...

 

[Craig234]

It would do very little to help an extra 300 billion in deficit...

The 'crap Bush allowed' has taken us from a surplus to that 300 billion deficit.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Why do they need an excuse for that? It's just a fact of life that we are in the middle of a war and running huge deficits now. Someone has to pay for all of that.

Well, if Bush is such a big spender like all the libs claim (which I agree with by the way) why don't they just cut all the crap that he has allowed to go through?

Well, you at least agree that he is a big spender, but why do you say "like all the libs claim?" It's a fact that he is one of the biggest spenders we've ever had proportionately, which is where it matters the most. Hell, he managed to beat Johnson. I suggest you go through the Cato Institute's website on Bush's spending record.

 

[Craig234]

Well, you at least agree that he is a big spender, but why do you say "like all the libs claim?" It's a fact that he is one of the biggest spenders we've ever had proportionately, which is where it matters the most. Hell, he managed to beat Johnson. I suggest you go through the Cato Institute's website on Bush's spending record.

It's a way of making the truth look liberal. You see the media do it all the time, when they say anything true and negative about Bush, they'll say a lot, 'critics say that Bush...' lets them off the hook from the 'liberal media' charge, they think, but of course it doesn't, because *any* deviation from the republican talking points is bias, to the cult.

 

[Vic]

On topic, there is some merit to the OP. There has been much discussion as to the way the government uses inflation in order to decrease the value of the national debt. It is, effectively, yet another hidden tax, and probably the one that hurts the poor the most.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, you at least agree that he is a big spender, but why do you say "like all the libs claim?" It's a fact that he is one of the biggest spenders we've ever had proportionately, which is where it matters the most. Hell, he managed to beat Johnson. I suggest you go through the Cato Institute's website on Bush's spending record.

It's a way of making the truth look liberal. You see the media do it all the time, when they say anything true and negative about Bush, they'll say a lot, 'critics say that Bush...' lets them off the hook from the 'liberal media' charge, they think, but of course it doesn't, because *any* deviation from the republican talking points is bias, to the cult.

Wrong. There is so much talk from you guys saying how much Bush has increased spending, so why not keep the tax cuts for the middle class and just cut all of the spending that supposedly wouldn't have been happened if the Democrats were in charge?

Well, I guess you could be right, it is a way of making the truth look liberal, and if they let the tax cuts for the middle class sunset then it is liberal.

 

[Craig234]

There aren't any tax cuts for anyone from Bush. There is tax borrowing. Saying "hey, here's $100 but you owe it plus interest" is not a tax cut.

I'm happy for the dems to cut most of the spenging increases of Bush. And I'm not too worried about their keeping the small 'middle class tax borrows' Bush did, either, it's the ones for the very wealthy that are the problem.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There aren't any tax cuts for anyone from Bush. There is tax borrowing. Saying "hey, here's $100 but you owe it plus interest" is not a tax cut.

I'm happy for the dems to cut most of the spenging increases of Bush. And I'm not too worried about their keeping the small 'middle class tax borrows' Bush did, either, it's the ones for the very wealthy that are the problem.

The wealthy deserve their money just as much as you and I do. Just because someone made more money than me does not mean that they deserve it less. Loopholes and all that mess are different, but I don't like it when someone is taxed more (percentage) just because they are more successful. But thats a whole other issue.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, you at least agree that he is a big spender, but why do you say "like all the libs claim?" It's a fact that he is one of the biggest spenders we've ever had proportionately, which is where it matters the most. Hell, he managed to beat Johnson. I suggest you go through the Cato Institute's website on Bush's spending record.

It's a way of making the truth look liberal. You see the media do it all the time, when they say anything true and negative about Bush, they'll say a lot, 'critics say that Bush...' lets them off the hook from the 'liberal media' charge, they think, but of course it doesn't, because *any* deviation from the republican talking points is bias, to the cult.

Wrong. There is so much talk from you guys saying how much Bush has increased spending, so why not keep the tax cuts for the middle class and just cut all of the spending that supposedly wouldn't have been happened if the Democrats were in charge?

Well, I guess you could be right, it is a way of making the truth look liberal, and if they let the tax cuts for the middle class sunset then it is liberal.

If you were actually a conservative, that's what you would be saying.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, you at least agree that he is a big spender, but why do you say "like all the libs claim?" It's a fact that he is one of the biggest spenders we've ever had proportionately, which is where it matters the most. Hell, he managed to beat Johnson. I suggest you go through the Cato Institute's website on Bush's spending record.

It's a way of making the truth look liberal. You see the media do it all the time, when they say anything true and negative about Bush, they'll say a lot, 'critics say that Bush...' lets them off the hook from the 'liberal media' charge, they think, but of course it doesn't, because *any* deviation from the republican talking points is bias, to the cult.

Wrong. There is so much talk from you guys saying how much Bush has increased spending, so why not keep the tax cuts for the middle class and just cut all of the spending that supposedly wouldn't have been happened if the Democrats were in charge?

Well, I guess you could be right, it is a way of making the truth look liberal, and if they let the tax cuts for the middle class sunset then it is liberal.

If you were actually a conservative, that's what you would be saying.

Good, that is what I'm saying.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Democrats aren't the ones that are going to be "raising taxes." It's the Republicans that put time-limits on the tax-cuts that are the ones raising taxes back up.

Whoever opts to not re-authorize them will be the ones that raised taxes.

No, Whoever signed those taxcuts with the sunsetting provisions into the law is the one who raised them.

Already making excuses for your heroes?

Excuses for what? GOP is the ones who made these taxcuts temporary, and for that I give them credit. At least they built in provisions to clean up a part of their own mess.

Excuses for making the middle class pay more taxes when they let this sunset.

The "middle class" got almost nothing from the Bush tax cuts. And, when the Fed lowered it's pay-out to the states due to the tax cuts (for the rich) the states had to raise their property taxes etc. and those tax increases (directly the result of the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich) did impact the middle class.

 

[techs]

While conservative "think tanks" are hugely funded to come up with ways to give the rich more and everyone else less we have had to endure failed policies like "trickle down" and had to fight against "flat tax" and "fair tax" proposals that have one goal-more money for the very rich and less for everyone else.
And when a proposal to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years comes up instead of having a 90 percent support rate, the 30 percent of really stupid Americans who are caught up in the ideology attributing near religious worship of the super rich fight it.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: techs
While conservative "think tanks" are hugely funded to come up with ways to give the rich more and everyone else less we have had to endure failed policies like "trickle down" and had to fight against "flat tax" and "fair tax" proposals that have one goal-more money for the very rich and less for everyone else.
And when a proposal to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years comes up instead of having a 90 percent support rate, the 30 percent of really stupid Americans who are caught up in the ideology attributing near religious worship of the super rich fight it.

I'm a conservative, and as I said in the OP, I'm not necessarily opposed to raising the minimum wage. But I'd much rather let the free market determine wages, and reduce or eliminate the income tax burden on lower-income individuals and families.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Nyati13

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Democrats aren't the ones that are going to be "raising taxes." It's the Republicans that put time-limits on the tax-cuts that are the ones raising taxes back up.

Whoever opts to not re-authorize them will be the ones that raised taxes.

No, Whoever signed those taxcuts with the sunsetting provisions into the law is the one who raised them.

Already making excuses for your heroes?

Excuses for what? GOP is the ones who made these taxcuts temporary, and for that I give them credit. At least they built in provisions to clean up a part of their own mess.

Excuses for making the middle class pay more taxes when they let this sunset.

The "middle class" got almost nothing from the Bush tax cuts. And, when the Fed lowered it's pay-out to the states due to the tax cuts (for the rich) the states had to raise their property taxes etc. and those tax increases (directly the result of the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich) did impact the middle class.

I am in the middle class, I know what I got. Maybe it was "almost nothing" to you but it definitely helped me. Maybe the states should have cut back spending instead of raising the taxes when they got less money from the federal government, makes sense to me. Thats not the federal governments fault if the state can't cut spending.

Anyways, my statement is still correct, if the Dems let this sunset then they will in effect be raising taxes on the middle class. I do think that it was dumb to put a sunset on the tax cuts, but whats been done is done, if the Dems don't extend them then that is their fault.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There aren't any tax cuts for anyone from Bush. There is tax borrowing. Saying "hey, here's $100 but you owe it plus interest" is not a tax cut.

I'm happy for the dems to cut most of the spenging increases of Bush. And I'm not too worried about their keeping the small 'middle class tax borrows' Bush did, either, it's the ones for the very wealthy that are the problem.

But when is that interest due? Theoretically, it could be hundreds of years before we have to pay off a cent of that. It's like saying, "hey, here's $100 but you owe it plus interest whenever you feel like getting around to it".