4 ms·

If there was no welfare, and no tax system, then introducing a minimum wage would probably be a net improvement. However, taxes and welfare already address the

If there was no welfare, and no tax system, then introducing a minimum wage would probably be a net improvement. However, taxes and welfare already address the issue of hungry people (I don't particularly care how angry a person is). My problem is not with the goal of redistributing wealth, but with the minimum wage as a way to do this. Since the tax authorities already know the figure that we are really interested in (how much money a person makes in total), it makes more sense to lower the tax rate on low income earners, or increase welfare, than to increase the minimum wage.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
If we had good universal welfare that did not depend on income, then having no minimum wage is politically fairly neutral. However when you have a situation where welfare is divisive and intrusive on the individual, then being able to leave welfare through employment is socially important. And it really does matter how angry the hungry person is, at least if you want to stay in government.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  While there is some truth to what you say, I would point out that (A) a person making $9 a year would still be paying around $900 federal tax, and (B) my understanding is that TANF is not especially intrusive (not sure what you mean by divisive). I still don't understand the logic of "X will make people angry so you shouldn't do X". Since I already care about how well off poor people are, why should I care about what makes people angry directly. While the government needs votes to stay in power, that doesn't change what in theory is the best policy, it just restricts the set of policies that we can choose from. While increasing welfare and decreasing tax on the poor, while (possibly) removing the minimum wage, might make some people angry, I don't see why this makes it a bad policy.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

If we had good universal welfare that did not depend on income, then having no minimum wage is politically fairly neutral. However when you have a situation where welfare is divisive and intrusive on the individual, then being able to leave welfare through employment is socially important. And it really does matter how angry the hungry person is, at least if you want to stay in government.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
While there is some truth to what you say, I would point out that (A) a person making $9 a year would still be paying around $900 federal tax, and (B) my understanding is that TANF is not especially intrusive (not sure what you mean by divisive). I still don't understand the logic of "X will make people angry so you shouldn't do X". Since I already care about how well off poor people are, why should I care about what makes people angry directly. While the government needs votes to stay in power, that doesn't change what in theory is the best policy, it just restricts the set of policies that we can choose from. While increasing welfare and decreasing tax on the poor, while (possibly) removing the minimum wage, might make some people angry, I don't see why this makes it a bad policy.