3 ms·

> and serves as an employment subsidy for many small businesses that would, otherwise, not employ anyone It would serve as a generous subsidy to _any_ employer

> and serves as an employment subsidy for many small businesses that would, otherwise, not employ anyone It would serve as a generous subsidy to _any_ employer that doesn't want to pay a living wage. It's not clear to me why the federal government should be subsidizing the practices of companies like Walmart, who are already costing the government $6.2 billion in public assistance[1]. But that's effectively what an expanded EITC would do [2]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#73792abe720b https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... [2] http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/165rothstein.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/165rothstein.pdf

TimJYoung 9y ago
I'm not happy about providing subsidies to corporations, either, so if there's a way to prevent this, then I'm all for it. I just don't see how you could do it, so you're left with increasing corporate taxes, etc. as a remedy. I'm in favor of the minimum wage increases, in principle. I just think that increasing the minimum wage in all of the municipalities that need an increase is going to take too long, and that it's too broad in how it supplements incomes (the teenager issue mentioned already).