3 ms·

This has been posted many times before, and AFAICT it’s fundamentally misleading, as it doesn’t account for transfer payments (refundable tax credits, food stam

This has been posted many times before, and AFAICT it’s fundamentally misleading, as it doesn’t account for transfer payments (refundable tax credits, food stamps, housing vouchers, ACA subsidies, …) That artificially inflates the “wage level” needed for the estimated living standard. It also makes the tax figures absurd. No two-parent, two-kid household making $110K is paying 15% of that net in taxes, subtracting deductions, credits and subsidies. IOW, our “safety net” for middle-income parents could get 5X more generous and this calculator would show the same results.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
daveguy 9mo ago
A lot of the safety net also goes poof if you have the living wage. So I'm not sure exactly how your argument works. Are you saying the minimum wage should be under the poverty wage and everyone with that wage should depend on safety nets as it is now?
- twoodfin 9mo ago
  If this is meant to truly calculate the wage someone needs to live, it should at least attempt to assess transfer payments from the government, the same way it estimates living costs.
  - daveguy 9mo ago
    I'm not sure what part of "the safety net goes away if you have the living wage" you don't understand. The living wage is the wage that you need. Because you're not getting any "transfers" from safety nets at that point. If we had a perfect safety net you could claim any minimum wage, even $0/hr, is the "living wage". But that's not the point. The point is -- what wage would you need to live completely self sufficiently on your own. In policy, it is used to guide when the safety net is no longer necessary. So, including a decent, morally justified, safety net would defeat the purpose of calculating "living wage". tldr it's "living wage" not "living subsidy".
    - twoodfin 9mo ago
      The child tax credit phaseout for a married couple is at $400,000 AGI. There are massive tax deductions and credits available to the middle class (and beyond!) for health care, child care, education … Transfer payments aren’t just for the destitute.
      - daveguy 9mo ago
        The point isn't whether the subsidy is for the destitute. It's whether it matters for incomes below the living wage or poverty wage. You can't buy milk and bread with a school voucher and the meager child tax credit is a pittance compared to the cost of raising a kid. It's just not relevant to wages below a living wage. Also, what makes you think the numbers for living wage with children don't include those pittances? Child tax credit would make about a $1/hr difference even if it isn't accounted for. We still have a complete failure of a safety net and a failure of basic minimum wage in the US.
        twoodfin 9mo ago
        Transfer payments are 15% of GDP, they’re not a “pittance”: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1bE47 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1bE47
fuzzer371 9mo ago
And yet... It doesn't! Stop posting arguments like this.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

daveguy 9mo ago

A lot of the safety net also goes poof if you have the living wage. So I'm not sure exactly how your argument works. Are you saying the minimum wage should be under the poverty wage and everyone with that wage should depend on safety nets as it is now?

twoodfin 9mo ago
If this is meant to truly calculate the wage someone needs to live, it should at least attempt to assess transfer payments from the government, the same way it estimates living costs.
- daveguy 9mo ago
  I'm not sure what part of "the safety net goes away if you have the living wage" you don't understand. The living wage is the wage that you need. Because you're not getting any "transfers" from safety nets at that point. If we had a perfect safety net you could claim any minimum wage, even $0/hr, is the "living wage". But that's not the point. The point is -- what wage would you need to live completely self sufficiently on your own. In policy, it is used to guide when the safety net is no longer necessary. So, including a decent, morally justified, safety net would defeat the purpose of calculating "living wage". tldr it's "living wage" not "living subsidy".
  - twoodfin 9mo ago
    The child tax credit phaseout for a married couple is at $400,000 AGI. There are massive tax deductions and credits available to the middle class (and beyond!) for health care, child care, education … Transfer payments aren’t just for the destitute.
    - daveguy 9mo ago
      The point isn't whether the subsidy is for the destitute. It's whether it matters for incomes below the living wage or poverty wage. You can't buy milk and bread with a school voucher and the meager child tax credit is a pittance compared to the cost of raising a kid. It's just not relevant to wages below a living wage. Also, what makes you think the numbers for living wage with children don't include those pittances? Child tax credit would make about a $1/hr difference even if it isn't accounted for. We still have a complete failure of a safety net and a failure of basic minimum wage in the US.
      - twoodfin 9mo ago
        Transfer payments are 15% of GDP, they’re not a “pittance”: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1bE47 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1bE47

fuzzer371 9mo ago

And yet... It doesn't! Stop posting arguments like this.