3 ms·
"often meant people at the lowest levels of opportunity would make more by staying home than if they got a job" Considering how low the Coronavirus add-on paym
by secfirstmd 6y ago
"often meant people at the lowest levels of opportunity would make more by staying home than if they got a job"
Considering how low the Coronavirus add-on payments are, doesn't your point really mean that those at the bottom of the scale, where minimum rates have barely budged in the US - are vastly underpaid on a normal basis?
- zdragnar 6y agoWasn't the payout an extra $600 / week? That's equivalent of an extra $20 / hour of a 40 hour workweek after tax withholdings. Around half of income earners in the US make less than that from working, my wife's included. It should also be noted that a little over 2% only make the federal minimum wage. In fact, the NYT broke this down on a state-by-state basis: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-stimulus-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/econ... Aside from whether or not the minimum wage should be increased, it does seem to demonstrate easily enough that the stimulus is a perverse incentive. Bringing this back to the original point I was replying to, it utterly fails the definition of the top level of charity by encouraging people to become dependent on the largess of others. That's not to say it is therefore a bad thing, but it certainly isn't a reason to call paying taxes the highest level of charity.