3 ms·

This is the conundrum. People want manufacturing here and also want it to be super high paying with skills learned in a few days. People also want to buy things

This is the conundrum. People want manufacturing here and also want it to be super high paying with skills learned in a few days. People also want to buy things at the dollar store. If all the things at the dollar store were made by US workers, there wouldn't be dollar stores. Dollar stores exploded after Clinton opened up trade with China. Want people really want is buying power even if they don't understand it. It is also why I personally feel we are better off with removing all wage taxes on the poor than trying to push minimum wage higher and higher. Rich people don't shop at Wal-Mart. If everyone there makes $20/hour, it just makes it more expensive for the same people who now make "more" money (and they'll pay more taxes). If costs rise just like wages, buying power doesn't increase and could actually go down even if someone "makes" more.

mehrdadn 7y ago
> It is also why I personally feel we are better off with removing all wage taxes on the poor than trying to push minimum wage higher and higher. Confused, are you under the impression the entirety of everyone's wages is taxed in the United States? P.S. On your larger point: I'm not sure in what world you think 0% tax is a substitute for minimum wage. It certainly does not prevent you from earning atrociously low wages (and having correspondingly abysmal purchasing power). It only means the government won't take any of your measly earnings. Whereas minimum wage is designed to solve exactly that problem.
- snarf21 7y ago
  To be fair, I never said get rid of minimum wage. I was talking about pushing it up to things like $20. The point I was trying to make is that if you go too high, you cause people to just up tax brackets and higher costs at the places they shop because those workers are also making $20/hour now too. Some people think tools like EITC helps the poor more than pushing minimum wage up and I tend to agree. I don't think EITC goes far enough and I would remove all federal taxes for people who earn less than some $X/year.
  - kittiepryde 7y ago
    The higher tax bracket, only taxes the money that falls into that bracket, they will still have higher after tax incomes.
    - ry4nolson 7y ago
      It amazes me how many people don't grasp this.
      - jbn 7y ago
        You are so right, it's incredible how many people don't grasp this. Further, people in lower brackets think that the tax rate in higher brackets is unfair because it applies to the whole income (rather than just that bracket). I guess a piecewise affine function is just too complicated...
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      I didn't even realize this might be the cause of their misunderstanding until I read your comment! Thanks for pointing it out.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    That still doesn't make any sense. Consider the federal case. Currently minimum wage is $7.25/hr or just above $15k/yr, whereas $20 minimum wage is like $40k/yr, or like $18.40 after federal tax (ignore FICA + states for now, they're beside my point). You're complaining raising minimum wage to $20 is not the solution, but you want to raise it some, and make up for the rest with lowering taxes? So what mix are you imagining will give comparable results? Like say, raise minimum wage to, I dunno, maybe $10? In what world is lower taxes going to make up the $8.40 shortfall? Are your taxes going to be negative? Or are you suggesting you're comfortable raising minimum wage to $18.40 but the $20.00 is what you find overly excessive? P.S. I wasn't even talking about EITC, but the standard deduction. Your first $18,650 of income as head of household are simply untaxed ($24,800 for couples)... period. That's exactly what you were proposing, and it's been already there, for a long time. In hourly terms that's $9/hr for heads of households ($12/hr for couples) of untaxed income. EITC is relatively obscure by comparison, so I'm confused why you would first think of that when replying... I'm guessing you might be confused about how standard deductions and tax brackets work? Or possibly unfamiliar with the US tax system?

mehrdadn 7y ago

> It is also why I personally feel we are better off with removing all wage taxes on the poor than trying to push minimum wage higher and higher. Confused, are you under the impression the entirety of everyone's wages is taxed in the United States? P.S. On your larger point: I'm not sure in what world you think 0% tax is a substitute for minimum wage. It certainly does not prevent you from earning atrociously low wages (and having correspondingly abysmal purchasing power). It only means the government won't take any of your measly earnings. Whereas minimum wage is designed to solve exactly that problem.

snarf21 7y ago
To be fair, I never said get rid of minimum wage. I was talking about pushing it up to things like $20. The point I was trying to make is that if you go too high, you cause people to just up tax brackets and higher costs at the places they shop because those workers are also making $20/hour now too. Some people think tools like EITC helps the poor more than pushing minimum wage up and I tend to agree. I don't think EITC goes far enough and I would remove all federal taxes for people who earn less than some $X/year.
- kittiepryde 7y ago
  The higher tax bracket, only taxes the money that falls into that bracket, they will still have higher after tax incomes.
  - ry4nolson 7y ago
    It amazes me how many people don't grasp this.
    - jbn 7y ago
      You are so right, it's incredible how many people don't grasp this. Further, people in lower brackets think that the tax rate in higher brackets is unfair because it applies to the whole income (rather than just that bracket). I guess a piecewise affine function is just too complicated...
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    I didn't even realize this might be the cause of their misunderstanding until I read your comment! Thanks for pointing it out.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  That still doesn't make any sense. Consider the federal case. Currently minimum wage is $7.25/hr or just above $15k/yr, whereas $20 minimum wage is like $40k/yr, or like $18.40 after federal tax (ignore FICA + states for now, they're beside my point). You're complaining raising minimum wage to $20 is not the solution, but you want to raise it some, and make up for the rest with lowering taxes? So what mix are you imagining will give comparable results? Like say, raise minimum wage to, I dunno, maybe $10? In what world is lower taxes going to make up the $8.40 shortfall? Are your taxes going to be negative? Or are you suggesting you're comfortable raising minimum wage to $18.40 but the $20.00 is what you find overly excessive? P.S. I wasn't even talking about EITC, but the standard deduction. Your first $18,650 of income as head of household are simply untaxed ($24,800 for couples)... period. That's exactly what you were proposing, and it's been already there, for a long time. In hourly terms that's $9/hr for heads of households ($12/hr for couples) of untaxed income. EITC is relatively obscure by comparison, so I'm confused why you would first think of that when replying... I'm guessing you might be confused about how standard deductions and tax brackets work? Or possibly unfamiliar with the US tax system?