The practical problem is that's just a nice big check once a year. Bills come monthly and we need food daily.
The practical problem is that's just a nice big check once a year. Bills come monthly and we need food daily.
On what do you imagine a $15k poverty-level individual will be spending/investing her $519 windfall?
I think the federal government should decrease its role in most areas of policy and governance. Minimum wage is no exception. Let cities, counties, states set their rates (or not) as they best attempt to address their citizenry's needs. Because we are a (should be) a loose union of States with freedom of movement among them, it's one big marketplace of ideas and talent. I certainly don't want the IRS to have another tentacle.
On what do you imagine a $15k poverty-level individual will be spending/investing her $519 windfall?
I think the federal government should decrease its role in most areas of policy and governance. Minimum wage is no exception. Let cities, counties, states set their rates (or not) as they best attempt to address their citizenry's needs. Because we are a (should be) a loose union of States with freedom of movement among them, it's one big marketplace of ideas and talent. I certainly don't want the IRS to have another tentacle.
For a $15K poverty-level individual, I usually see that $519 windfall currently as possibly just spending more on food and shelter. However, if they kept a lot more, they could spending money on not only food and shelter but buying other goods that they otherwise would not be able to afford.
And I also agree that the minimum wage rates should be handled by the local-level governments (city, state, county) instead of the federal government. If you look at the average wage you'd need to make in order to afford a two bedroom rental home or apartment in different states, it is significantly higher in California than it is in New Mexico: https://reports.nlihc.org/oor
For a $15K poverty-level individual, I usually see that $519 windfall currently as possibly just spending more on food and shelter. However, if they kept a lot more, they could spending money on not only food and shelter but buying other goods that they otherwise would not be able to afford.
And I also agree that the minimum wage rates should be handled by the local-level governments (city, state, county) instead of the federal government. If you look at the average wage you'd need to make in order to afford a two bedroom rental home or apartment in different states, it is significantly higher in California than it is in New Mexico: https://reports.nlihc.org/oor
So just like the dollar goes farther in certain locales, how can it be fair that $519 per person would be equally beneficial to all who qualify, no matter where they live and work?
The cost of, as you guess, food/shelter would likely just increase by $519 because "nobody" wants the "X - $519" living conditions, and now there is high demand for the "X + $519" living conditions, so the price rises and really nothing was accomplished.
So just like the dollar goes farther in certain locales, how can it be fair that $519 per person would be equally beneficial to all who qualify, no matter where they live and work?
The cost of, as you guess, food/shelter would likely just increase by $519 because "nobody" wants the "X - $519" living conditions, and now there is high demand for the "X + $519" living conditions, so the price rises and really nothing was accomplished.
What I meant is that most of the money would be spent on food/shelter if the EITC caps stayed where they were. This is essentially having lower taxes on those with lower incomes and using this policy as a tool to benefit the economy because if they got higher income tax credits, they'd be able to spend more on goods other than just focusing on food and shelter.
Regarding locales, this is where I would say the local governments themselves also need to step in and expand their earned income tax credit programs as well in accordance with the needs of their areas because like you mentioned, the federal EITC will not be entirely beneficial for everyone who is eligible.
What I meant is that most of the money would be spent on food/shelter if the EITC caps stayed where they were. This is essentially having lower taxes on those with lower incomes and using this policy as a tool to benefit the economy because if they got higher income tax credits, they'd be able to spend more on goods other than just focusing on food and shelter.
Regarding locales, this is where I would say the local governments themselves also need to step in and expand their earned income tax credit programs as well in accordance with the needs of their areas because like you mentioned, the federal EITC will not be entirely beneficial for everyone who is eligible.
Well you know I found an interesting thing about the minimum wage a year or two ago, in places where you have a lot of people the average wage seems to decrease, where as in places with few people such as rural Illinois there is almost no one actually making minimum wage. I don't think the problem of wages can be solved by government by just defining a number whether that is by the IRS or congress I think that at the end of the day we have a problem of people not money, we need companies to have to compete for workers thats the only way wages will go up.
Well you know I found an interesting thing about the minimum wage a year or two ago, in places where you have a lot of people the average wage seems to decrease, where as in places with few people such as rural Illinois there is almost no one actually making minimum wage. I don't think the problem of wages can be solved by government by just defining a number whether that is by the IRS or congress I think that at the end of the day we have a problem of people not money, we need companies to have to compete for workers thats the only way wages will go up.
If you want to lower taxation on the poor, lower taxes for everyone.
If you want to lower taxation on the poor, lower taxes for everyone.
Neither
Neither
Then isn't this shifting the burden from private (ie employers paying), to public (ie tax payers paying)? I don't see how that is effective...
Then isn't this shifting the burden from private (ie employers paying), to public (ie tax payers paying)? I don't see how that is effective...
so whats next , force employers to hire every jobless out there ?
so whats next , force employers to hire every jobless out there ?
(post is archived)