Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?
Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.
I already answered that question. $200/hr isnt sensible because thats way over whats needed to take care of necessities. Is it sensible to fumigate your entire house because you saw 1 ant?Why isn't $200/hr sensible? That's all I'm really asking. Why would it be bad to set it very high? Answering that question is necessary when debating where we should set the minimum wage.Stupid argument is stupid.This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.
The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.
Clearly you recognize that it would be bad to set the minimum wage "too high". Why's it so hard to admit that and honestly discuss your reasoning?
What kind of dumb question is that? Do you know what a tax write off is?Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?
Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.
How are they a tax write off? Do you even know what a tax write off is?
Stupid argument is stupid.This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.
The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.
For some reason you munchkin's can't figure out minimum wage is zero..
No matter if it's $1 dollar an hour or $250 an hour.. the more you raise it the more you screw people in the upper tiers..
.
What kind of dumb question is that? Do you know what a tax write off is?Cool. So what is the problem with raising MW if the wages are a tax write off for the business? Everyone keeps saying its an expense the businesses have to eat.Quick question for those that cite businesses not being able to afford the increase in wages. Are you aware that salaries/wages are a tax write off for small businesses?
Wages paid are a tax deduction. Payments to employees (salaries, wages, bonuses, and taxable fringe benefits are deductible business expenses. Payments to sole proprietors, partners, and LLC members are not.
How are they a tax write off? Do you even know what a tax write off is?
Salaries, Wages, and Other Items May Count as Tax-Deductible Expenses
Write-Off
"A write-off is a deduction in the value of earnings by the amount of an expense or loss. When businesses file their income tax return, they are able to write off expenses incurred to run the business and subtract them from their revenue to determine their taxable income."
I already answered that question. $200/hr isnt sensible because thats way over whats needed to take care of necessities. Is it sensible to fumigate your entire house because you saw 1 ant?Why isn't $200/hr sensible? That's all I'm really asking. Why would it be bad to set it very high? Answering that question is necessary when debating where we should set the minimum wage.Stupid argument is stupid.This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.
The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.
Clearly you recognize that it would be bad to set the minimum wage "too high". Why's it so hard to admit that and honestly discuss your reasoning?
Stupid argument is stupid.This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.
The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.
For some reason you munchkin's can't figure out minimum wage is zero..
No matter if it's $1 dollar an hour or $250 an hour.. the more you raise it the more you screw people in the upper tiers..
.
"minimum wage is zero.."
Please explain your rationale. Especially how you screw people in upper tiers.
Stupid argument is stupid.This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.
The minimum wage is designed to re a sensible minimum wage. $200 an hour wouldn't be sensible, thus only insane idiots even bring it up. Hell $15 isn't sensible, but neither is $7.25.
For some reason you munchkin's can't figure out minimum wage is zero..
No matter if it's $1 dollar an hour or $250 an hour.. the more you raise it the more you screw people in the upper tiers..
.
"minimum wage is zero.."
Please explain your rationale. Especially how you screw people in upper tiers.
He's making the point that the employer can always choose to pay their employees zero. ie they can, and will, lay them off if the minimum wage is more than the labor is worth.
Yes, we clearly should have been indexing it for inflation all along, and then this big deal wouldn't have been so big. Now we'd have to do it in chunks, and that brings up new issues.1938 Ist minimum wage 25 cents a hour. last minimum wage increase 2009, $725
if we upped the increase every 2-3 years a small amount business would know it was coming & could plan for it.
there are down sides to everything, have to look at what helps the most people, and hurts the least.
not many places left where you can live on under 8$ an hour. right now we are a little behind, don't shot me just my opinion
but ist step could be to twelve.
Well Ford raised the pay of workers in his plant & said then they will make enough money to buy by a Ford,
don't have an answer but if housing was affordable it would be tight yet maybe possible to live on 10.00 hour most places.
You are trying to find a loophole in the Constitution. If you travel to may state to buy something from my business, then you may be engaging in interstate commerce, but I am not, so my employees would not be subject to a federal MW.From the Constitution which says all powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states.Yes, the federal government has no jurisdiction over companies that don't engage in interstate commerce, but a state law would apply to all companies.Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that if there was a national law that all business in state X had to pay X amount per hour then businesses that dont engage in interstate commerce wouldnt have to obey that law?
Sorry, but that is simply not true. Where did you get that silly idea?
Guess what? You are wrong.
Your statement about the Constitution is correct but does not apply, because every company can be considered to conduct interstate commerce. What happens when I travel to your state and buy something? Do I pay my state's taxes or your states?
Thats also a dumb argument. Welfare wasnt meant to be for anyone other than whites but that too changed with time. The facts are that people with families are working shitty jobs for low wages. The MW should be something that gives people with a work ethic a reason to not be on welfare.Minimum wage was never supposed to be a "living wage." It was supposed to be for kids under 18 during summer.
As government got bigger and bigger and more expensive, it has increased costs on businesses, driven some out of the US, and forced wages DOWN.
Want lower end wages to RISE?
CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Nobody was bitching about minimum wage before W's 8 year Bible Thumping Socialist PORKFEST.... followed by QUEER-O.
So how does rasing minimum wage help?
If MW were raised to $11 an hour , welfare use would drop by at least 15% by most studies. That's a pretty good savings of tax dollars.
If MW were raised to $11 an hour , welfare use would drop by at least 15% by most studies
Did a CERTIFIED CLIMATE "Scientist" do that "study?"
I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.
I don't care if businesses make or lose money, that's their problem. And the same, I don't care if a person can afford to raise 4 children on what McDonalds pays. That is THEIR problem. All I care about is the equilibrium that saves the government the most money.
I even grant you that the assholes in charge would more likely just find somewhere else to spend the money rather than saying "oh okay our expenses are less now" but we have to try.
There are certainly downsides to a MW increase, and I pointed them out in post 112.The government, typically through Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded systems, is having to pick up where the employer leaves off.This is an important part of this, and one that those are against the minimum wage generally avoid.I mean I'm a very conservative guy. The ONLY reason I support a minimum wage law and increasing that to an actual value that is worth something is because it is obvious that doing so will save tax payers money. I'm actually a small government person.
When a person is working full time and yet still needs government assistance, then the government is clearly subsidizing the employer. I don't see how an honest "small government" person can justify that.
And exactly, this is about finding equilibrium. But we just don't seem to have the capacity to put that much independent thought into it. For both ends, it's all or nothing. Intellectual laziness. As usual.
.
Subsidizing the employer? You're gonna have to expand on that a little bit. The employer doesn't give a damn whether the employee has enough money to feed and cloth his/her kids and maybe requires some kind of gov't assistance. The employer isn't running a charity or engaged in social engineering, he/she is running a business that has to make enough profit to make it worthwhile to stay open for business. There's no benefit to the employer that I can see, speaking as a small gov't advocate. It's the employee that is getting subsidized, not the employer.
So, our tax money is being used to supplement the income the person is making from the employer.
Your money, my money. Right now. Undeniable.
.
That is still not subsidizing the employer. You think if the gov't wasn't paying the employees assistance through Medicaid or Foodstamps or whatever that the employer would be obliged to do so? Since when? They'll just make sure their employees are all classified as part-timers, right?
Let's go back to the argument about saving the taxpayers money if the M-Wage is raised. That has not been proven at all, some studies suggest that is true but others deny it. It flies in the face of all basic economics to think that when you raise the cost of labor the employers will meekly accept the increase in costs out of their profits. Nuh-uh, it doesn't usually work that way unless the business is already doing very well indeed. The problem is that most other small businesses may not be doing quite so well, and that higher cost of labor has to be offset somehow or the business becomes unfeasible to continue. So, they automate, or they cut hours or benefits, or they raise their prices (inflation!), or in some cases they just go out of business. So, the higher M-Wage will save taxpayer money for those who will get a bigger paycheck, cuz in some cases they won't be eligible any longer for certain gov't benefits that they used to get, and for some it's even a losing proposition because the new wage does not offset the loss of gov't benefits. So from this aspect, the higher M-Wage does result in less taxpayer money being spent on welfare programs.
But a higher M-Wage also means some employers get fired or see their hours and benefits cut. For them the gov't benefits (taxpayer money) will go up, and then there's the young people who are entering the workforce and can't find a job, there's a higher cost to the taxpayers too that could become long term once the boom period is over. And it WILL end sooner or later, it always does. So think about this, at some point the US economy goes into another recession or even a depression. Does anyone here believe that a higher M-Wage at that point in time is going to help the situation any? How many existing businesses will be forced to close because they can no longer afford the high labor costs that they could live with in the good times? New business startups require some investors to put up some money to get the business up and running, right? You know that these investors are going to look at the risks vs rewards, what is the expected profitability of the venture and what are the risks of failure? Let me clue everyone in, higher labor costs in the future does not improve the chances for investing money in any business that uses much labor. And that ain't good for people who will be looking for a job, unless they've got the necessary skills, training, or education to comma a higher income.
SO - for a whole host of reason, the gov't needs to stay the hell out of the wage and price controls business. Different regions and different business sectors can afford to pay different wages, and the locals can decide what they want to do based on their individual and local circumstances. But not the federal gov't, one size does not fit all situations, which is one big reason why they need to concentrate on the issues that ought be faced at the national level.
The fact remains, taxpayers are picking up where the employer leaves off. What should be or shouldn't be is not the point.
.
Well Ford raised the pay of workers in his plant & said then they will make enough money to buy by a Ford,
don't have an answer but if housing was affordable it would be tight yet maybe possible to live on 10.00 hour most places.
I do? Funny, I don't remember saying anything remotely like that.You keep denying that it is not a company's responsibility to make sure I can support 4 kids and a live-in baby momma on minimum wage.
I do? Funny, I don't remember saying anything remotely like that.You keep denying that it is not a company's responsibility to make sure I can support 4 kids and a live-in baby momma on minimum wage.
Oh, that's right. This is USMB.
I answered the OP's question clearly in post 112. There are obvious potential downsides to a raising the MW. But, in real life, we have to look at the big picture and measure costs vs. benefits. Your scenario is a cultural issue that indeed needs to be addressed. Immediately.
But simplistically dismissing a possible answer to a problem because the answer is not perfect is, well, simplistic.
.
Correct. That needs to be done separately.I do? Funny, I don't remember saying anything remotely like that.You keep denying that it is not a company's responsibility to make sure I can support 4 kids and a live-in baby momma on minimum wage.
Oh, that's right. This is USMB.
I answered the OP's question clearly in post 112. There are obvious potential downsides to a raising the MW. But, in real life, we have to look at the big picture and measure costs vs. benefits. Your scenario is a cultural issue that indeed needs to be addressed. Immediately.
But simplistically dismissing a possible answer to a problem because the answer is not perfect is, well, simplistic.
.
You don't address cultural changes with legislation that costs people money.
Well Ford raised the pay of workers in his plant & said then they will make enough money to buy by a Ford,
don't have an answer but if housing was affordable it would be tight yet maybe possible to live on 10.00 hour most places.
Get a better job or get a roommate!
