3 ms·

> I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the status quo. That's not necessarily true, EITC is an existing program. "Increase EITC

by bhupy 8y ago

> I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the status quo. That's not necessarily true, EITC is an existing program. "Increase EITC" requires just as much political will as "Increase the minimum wage". > One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government. You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Why should the government provide health insurance? Doing so allows employers to shirk their responsibility to provide health insurance to their workers. At the end of the day, we agree as a society that there's a minimum standard of living that everyone ought to enjoy, and welfare is our way of ensuring that. That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem.

CharlesColeman 8y ago
> You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people). > That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem. It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it.
- bhupy 8y ago
  > Only welfare that you can collect while employed. You're right, and I'd personally advocate for removing the employment requirement for the EITC (closer to a negative income tax or even a UBI), but expanding the EITC is more politically tenable in the near term, and becomes a stepping stone to achieve the latter. > the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it Are you suggesting that welfare and progressive taxation don't work? Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective? We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on prices. My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living. Welfare's fine for those who are unemployed or disabled (and maybe those who are in a time-limited transition period), but it shouldn't be a supplement to wages except in limited cases.
    - bhupy 8y ago
      > My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living But employers just pass that cost onto the consumer. This results in, in effect, a regressive tax, because these higher prices are paid by the rich and the poor alike. In contrast, using welfare to ensure that these workers don't go hungry ensures that the workers essentially end up with the same amount of money as they would have with the wage floor, but having the rich pay for it disproportionately (via progressive income/capital gains taxes).
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people). The other option would be a UBI, which would still remove any argument for minimum compensation but then wouldn't be conditional on working. > It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it. That's a separate problem. If you have a minimum wage it ends up being paid mostly by the poor through higher prices. If you have a UBI or similar, the rich may not be paying the 35% they're "supposed" to pay, but the 15% or so they actually pay sure is a lot more than the almost nothing they pay in the alternative. Also, there are pretty well known solutions to making international corporations pay for stuff, like replacing corporate income tax with VAT or DBCFT.

by bhupy 8y ago

CharlesColeman 8y ago

> You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people). > That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem. It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it.

bhupy 8y ago
> Only welfare that you can collect while employed. You're right, and I'd personally advocate for removing the employment requirement for the EITC (closer to a negative income tax or even a UBI), but expanding the EITC is more politically tenable in the near term, and becomes a stepping stone to achieve the latter. > the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it Are you suggesting that welfare and progressive taxation don't work? Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective? We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on prices. My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living. Welfare's fine for those who are unemployed or disabled (and maybe those who are in a time-limited transition period), but it shouldn't be a supplement to wages except in limited cases.
  - bhupy 8y ago
    > My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living But employers just pass that cost onto the consumer. This results in, in effect, a regressive tax, because these higher prices are paid by the rich and the poor alike. In contrast, using welfare to ensure that these workers don't go hungry ensures that the workers essentially end up with the same amount of money as they would have with the wage floor, but having the rich pay for it disproportionately (via progressive income/capital gains taxes).
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people). The other option would be a UBI, which would still remove any argument for minimum compensation but then wouldn't be conditional on working. > It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it. That's a separate problem. If you have a minimum wage it ends up being paid mostly by the poor through higher prices. If you have a UBI or similar, the rich may not be paying the 35% they're "supposed" to pay, but the 15% or so they actually pay sure is a lot more than the almost nothing they pay in the alternative. Also, there are pretty well known solutions to making international corporations pay for stuff, like replacing corporate income tax with VAT or DBCFT.