Senate Rejects Minimum Wage Hike

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
But in any event, because all businesses have to pay the same minimum wage, the business will not lose its relative competetive advantage.

That doesn't make any sense. I can get a hamburger at McDonald's, or I can get a hamburger at Jane Smith's local burger place. McDonald's has the advantage in cheap price (because they hire dumb laborers for close to the minimum wage), but the local burger shack has the advantage in customer service (because they hire more competent workers for $8 per hour).

So far so good...both McDonald's and the local burger joint have found their niche in the marketplace, and they cater to the customers who prefer their advantages to their competitor's.

But suppose the government now mandates an $8 per hour minimum wage. McDonald's is forced to lay off some workers (and is able to hire better-qualified workers since it's forced to pay a hire wage anyway). Therefore McDonald's will lose its competitive edge in price.

Since McDonald's now has better qualified workers, the local burger shack no longer has an advantage in customer service. Therefore it loses its competitive edge as well.

Do these cancel each other out? Probably not. Chances are, one side will lose more than the other. So the minimum wage DEFINITELY harms businesses. Just because its uniform doesn't mean it affects everyone equally.

A lot of hypothetical to that example. I could make a lot of hypothetical arguments about it as well. My point is that raising the minum wage doesn't disadvantage one competitor unfairly because the rule applies to both.

No. A higher minimum wage will drive the unemployment rate up. If a company raises its wages and doesn't lay off workers, either it will raise its prices (thus driving up inflation) or it will have a smaller profit margin (thus discouraging investment and risk-taking). Those three possibilities are all unacceptable.

I agree that a minimum wage can increase unemployment. There is a trade off between giving workers a wage they can realistically live on versus the rate of unemployment. IMO unemployment is not a significant concern given the level of increase that was proposed and the demographic situation in the US at the moment.

The unemployment rate would be very close to 0% if we didn't have labor laws at all.

That is speculation. Other thing affect unemployment than the shear number of available jobs at $3 an hour.

 

[Iriemon]

Actually just the opposite will happen.

Why do American companies hire illegal immigrants? Because they're willing to work for much less than Americans (generally less than the minimum wage). If we didn't have a minimum wage at all, American companies would have no incentive to break the law.

So let's say that the law prohibits Americans from working for less than $5.15 per hour, but an illegal immigrant is willing to do it for $2 per hour (under the table). If you raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour, you've just provided the employers with a much STRONGER incentive to break the law and hire illegal immigrants, who are still willing to work for $2 per hour.

It is true that in my example I was presuming the laws are enforced.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes it is.

And war by its nature is aggression.

So which class is aggressively using goverment to coerce another?

Since the pro-rich Republicans have controlled the govt for the past 6 years, isn't the answer obvious? Taxes the rich pay (income, estate, divididend and capital gains) have all be slashed. Taxes the poor/middle group pay (SS, corporate tax to a less extent) have not. The minimum wage has not been raised. Etc.

 

[Iriemon]

By whom and by what standard, the middle class, at least in America, has the highest standard of living it has ever had and it increases every year.

Not in real terms.

 

[Iriemon]

All income tax paying Americans did and the others did so by the results in the economy.

True for the first part of your sentence, though that was not the original statement and so what is your point?

How did others get a tax cut by the results of the economy?

Payroll taxes are reimbursed throught the EITC.

Certainly not true as an absolute statement.

Because those are "investments" remember. They are for you retirement and medical coverage. Why should they not pay those deductions, since they are not taxes in the true sense of taxes.

Absolutely false. SS and Medicare are not "investments" in any sense of the word, the fact you put the word in quotations indicates you realize that.

Payroll taxes are absolutely taxes in any sense of the word.

Putting aside the fact they are mandatory withdrawals taken from your income and given to the government, $2 trillion in SS tax payments over the past 20 years have been applied as general revenues.

 

[Stinger]

True for the first part of your sentence, though that was not the original statement and so what is your point?

That everyone paying income taxes got a tax cut when they cut income taxes. People who don't pay income taxes can't have them cut.

How did others get a tax cut by the results of the economy?

The investments those tax dollars went into.

Payroll taxes are reimbursed throught the EITC.

Certainly not true as an absolute statement.

Yes it is, that is a reimbursment ment to offset their payroll taxes.

Absolutely false. SS and Medicare are not "investments" in any sense of the word, the fact you put the word in quotations indicates you realize that.

According to the left they are investments, I use thier words since they are fighting for a higher minimum wage.

Payroll taxes are absolutely taxes in any sense of the word.

Actually they are not, you are purchasing something.

Putting aside the fact they are mandatory withdrawals taken from your income and given to the government,

Just because they are mandatory doesn't mean anything.

$2 trillion in SS tax payments over the past 20 years have been applied as general revenues.

Just because congress decides to spend it and give you an IOU doesn't mean anything.

It's an insurance fund you are paying into.

Now if you want to get rid of them altogether there is a way to do so and just use strict tax revenues to fund these things.

Do you believe someone who doesn't pay into SS should be able to recieve it?

 

[Stinger]

Do you make minimum wage?

 

[Kelzie]

Why do you keep trying to qualify my statement? My statement is factual, period. And people move in and out of classes. The standard of living for Americans has never been better and it continues to improve, period. Why do you have such a hard time with that?

Well as long as you recognize the truth in my statement, namely that the upper class is increasing its standards faster than the middle, I have no problem with yours.

I did, you are the one dancing around. So far no one here that I have asked makes minimum wage.

I wonder why that is.

Who cares?

 

[Stinger]

Not in real terms.

We are living at the highest standard of living we ever have and it gets better every decade, can you name a time in history when the population had it better and please be specific as to when and why it was better.

 

[zymurgy]

Since the pro-rich Republicans have controlled the govt for the past 6 years, isn't the answer obvious? Taxes the rich pay (income, estate, divididend and capital gains) have all be slashed. Taxes the poor/middle group pay (SS, corporate tax to a less extent) have not. The minimum wage has not been raised. Etc.

I suppose you need to shift the focus away from the minimum wage hike in order to avoid the quicksand you find you and your opinion resting on.

Now I agreed that this minimum wage argument was class warfare. But again, which class is using goverment to mandate a raise in living wages?

 

[Stinger]

Since the pro-rich Republicans have controlled the govt for the past 6 years, isn't the answer obvious? Taxes the rich pay (income, estate, divididend and capital gains) have all be slashed.

And revenues are soaring because they are paying more into the government coffers. Why would it be better to increase the tax rates on them resulting in less revenue into the government?

Taxes the poor/middle group pay (SS, corporate tax to a less extent) have not.

If you cut SS taxes then how are you going to pay them thier benifits? Do you believe people who pay nothing into SS should recieve SS later? Doesn't that just make it a welfare system then?

The minimum wage has not been raised. Etc.

Do you make minimum wage?

 

[Iriemon]

That everyone paying income taxes got a tax cut when they cut income taxes. People who don't pay income taxes can't have them cut.

Thanks for pointing that out, I guess. But the statement I was contesting was this:

Originally Posted by ANAV
All Americans benefit from the tax cuts. ...

The investments those tax dollars went into.
Payroll taxes are reimbursed throught the EITC.

Does not equate to a tax cut.

Yes it is, that is a reimbursment ment to offset their payroll taxes.

Funny. I pay SS taxes and receive no EITC. Where do I apply.

According to the left they are investments, I use thier words since they are fighting for a higher minimum wage.

Regardless of what the "left" says (I am not aware of "the left" saying this) we can agree SS/Medicare is not an investment.

Actually they are not, you are purchasing something.

You could say the same for income taxes. Bottom line, when the govt takes your money for its expenditures, it's a tax. They even call it a tax - FICA "taxes."

You conservatives try to call it something different to defend your "the rich pay all the taxes" class warfare rhetoric.

Just because they are mandatory doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything? It means you have to pay it whether you want to or not, like any other tax. The fact the are mandatory and go to the Govt means something.

Just because congress decides to spend it and give you an IOU doesn't mean anything.

Sure.

It's an insurance fund you are paying into.

So? Still a tax.

Now if you want to get rid of them altogether there is a way to do so and just use strict tax revenues to fund these things.

Fine.

Do you believe someone who doesn't pay into SS should be able to recieve it?

Not as you word it. I think someone who never paid into SS should not be able to receive it.

 

[Iriemon]

We are living at the highest standard of living we ever have and it gets better every decade, can you name a time in history when the population had it better and please be specific as to when and why it was better.

Are you taking back your assertion that the standard of living for the middle class increases every year?

 

[Iriemon]

And revenues are soaring because they are paying more into the government coffers. Why would it be better to increase the tax rates on them resulting in less revenue into the government?

Same BS again. Please show us one time that a tax rate increase *ever* resulted in less revenue into the government.

If you cut SS taxes then how are you going to pay them thier benifits? Do you believe people who pay nothing into SS should recieve SS later? Doesn't that just make it a welfare system then?

I thought you claim cutting taxes increases Govt revenues. So why didn't they cut SS taxes and increase SS revenues?

Do you make minimum wage?

No.

 

[Iriemon]

I suppose you need to shift the focus away from the minimum wage hike in order to avoid the quicksand you find you and your opinion resting on.

Now I agreed that this minimum wage argument was class warfare. But again, which class is using goverment to mandate a raise in living wages?

I'll take a guess and say not the class that has been using the Govt for the past 6 years to decrease their share of the tax burden.

 

[zymurgy]

I'll take a guess and say not the class that has been using the Govt for the past 6 years to decrease their share of the tax burden.

Did they use goverment to raise the tax burden for another class?

Nope, so where is this supposed aggression? It looks pretty clear only one class is participating in the warfare.

BTW, dividends and capital gains is something all classes are effected by.

 

[Iriemon]

Did they use goverment to raise the tax burden for another class?

Nope, so where is this supposed aggression? It looks pretty clear only one class is participating in the warfare.

That is true, the tax cuts have been financed by borrowing from future tax payers.

BTW, dividends and capital gains is something all classes are effected by.

BTW, since the wealthy control the vast majority of investment assets, they are the ones who benefit most significantly from dividend and cap gains tax cuts.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The best reason to oppose the minimum wage hike is aken to a dog chasing his tale.
The purchasing power of the dollar will decrease giving the minimum wager earner no more real wealth. Everybody above raises rates because of wage hikes and the purchasing power is unaffected.

Do the wages of minimum wage earners really have this much impact on our economy? What percentage of America's total incomes is made of min wage income? It can't be very much. Earlier someone said that less than 1% of Americans make min wage.

 

[Iriemon]

Do the wages of minimum wage earners really have this much impact on our economy? What percentage of America's total incomes is made of min wage income? It can't be very much.

4-5% is the figure I recall seeing.

 

[zymurgy]

That is true, the tax cuts have been financed by borrowing from future tax payers.

No more so then the expenditures have been financed by borrowing from future tax payers

BTW, since the wealthy control the vast majority of investment assets, they are the ones who benefit most significantly from dividend and cap gains tax cuts.

And since they pay the highest rates, they benefit the most from any reductions.

Did you realize your so-called example of class warfare gave income refunds to people that didn't pay income tax in the first place?

I wish the lower class was so considerate in their application of class warfare.

Oh well, at least you now agree that only the lower class is the aggressor in this classwarfare.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why is everyone complaining about the inherited estate tax being cut? That's not just for rich people. Don't middle class people die and leave behind property as well?

I don't understand....if they cut the "death tax" as I call it and my parents passed away my brothers, sister, and I would pay less taxes on our inheritence right? And how does that not help me? And clearly I am "middle class" and I don't have millions. Why is everyone saying it only helps the rich?

I think that this is already exempt. The estate tax doesn't kick in until a certain dollar amount is reached.

Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly-traded securities, small amounts of other easily-valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly-held property) with a total value under $1,000,000 do not require the filing of an estate tax return. The amount was $1,500,000 in 2004 and 2005. For 2006 through 2008, the amount is raised to $2,000,000.
​

 

[Iriemon]

No more so then the expenditures have been financed by borrowing from future tax payers

This is true, they are related, when you cut taxes and increase spending, it is future taxpayers who pay for the shortfall.

And since they pay the highest rates, they benefit the most from any reductions.

Not necessarily. If SS taxes were cut, the working class would have benefitted the most.

Did you realize your so-called example of class warfare gave income refunds to people that didn't pay income tax in the first place?

I was not aware of that. When did that happen? It wouldn't surprise me. The Republicans aren't stupid, they know the best way to enact their class warfare plans is to throw a few crumbs at the lower classes and then boast about how they are cutting taxes for everyone.

Oh well, at least you now agree that only the lower class is the aggressor in this classwarfare.

You must have misunderstood me.

 

[zymurgy]

Not necessarily. If SS taxes were cut, the working class would have benefitted the most.

How do you figure? Any reduction of taxes would also reduce the employer matching portion equally.

I was not aware of that. When did that happen? It wouldn't surprise me. The Republicans aren't stupid, they know the best way to enact their class warfare plans is to throw a few crumbs at the lower classes and then boast about how they are cutting taxes for everyone.

Those tax credits mailed out years ago even went to people that did not pay in taxes in the first place.

You must have misunderstood me.

No. When I stated that the tax cuts did not raise the taxes for the lower class you stated "true". You agreed that no aggression was directed towards the lower class.

 

[Iriemon]

How do you figure? Any reduction of taxes would also reduce the employer matching portion equally.

Sure. Working poor/middle class pay this tax. The very wealthy don't effectively pay SS tax as a % of their income. Cutting this tax would have given a real benefit to the working poor/middle classes, and not helped the wealthiest much at all.

Those tax credits mailed out years ago even went to people that did not pay in taxes in the first place.

I don't think that is true; do you have a cite?

No. When I stated that the tax cuts did not raise the taxes for the lower class you stated "true". You agreed that no aggression was directed towards the lower class.

The effect is that the lower classes are paying a larger burden of the overall tax burden. How that tax burden falls upon future taxpayers depends upon how taxes are raised to pay for it.

 

[zymurgy]

Sure. Working poor/middle class pay this tax. The very wealthy don't effectively pay SS tax as a % of their income. Cutting this tax would have given a real benefit to the working poor/middle classes, and not helped the wealthiest much at all.

The wealthiest people employ thousands of people, meaning they are matching dollar for dollar for thousands of people's SS tax. You are clearly missing the big picture here.

I don't think that is true; do you have a cite?



The effect is that the lower classes are paying a larger burden of the overall tax burden. How that tax burden falls upon future taxpayers depends upon how taxes are raised to pay for it.

Nope. No news is just that, no news.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030619-120558-9253r.htm

Now, 77 percent of those in the lowest-income quintile have no income tax liability, while 49 percent of those in the $16,000 to $28,000 group don't pay income taxes. And even in the second-highest quintile, 7 percent of those making between $45,000 and $73,000 have no income tax liability.
Mr. Edwards of Cato said the number of families off the rolls has changed the politics of tax cuts.
He said Democrats can no longer call for income-tax cuts for poor families because there are so few who pay, so instead they push for "refundable credits." Such credits, rather than subtracting from a qualifying family's tax liability, pays money to them outright since they owe nothing.