1. The official Sherdog Store is back! Check it out! » Discuss it here! »
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

Replacing EITC with wage subsidies

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by PolishHeadlock, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. PolishHeadlock

    PolishHeadlock Putin Belt Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    42,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phila fucking delphia
    Thought this was an interesting idea.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/8/25/9206571/wage-subsidies-poverty-rubio

     
    PolishHeadlock, Aug 27, 2015
    #1
  2. ChainFlow

    ChainFlow Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mostly the Midwest
    This is not as good an idea as it sounds.

    Employers would have an incentive to pay less than the "target" wage. I'm not sure why people always go on about supposed disincentives to work but ignore the tangible and definite effects proposals would have on employer behavior.

    Employer gets the positives of having a much lower turnover and higher employee satisfaction from their employee getting 10$ an hour vs 8 (amazing how much 2$ more has on that when it's a 25% boost) but only has to pay the 8.

    This sounds like yet another attempt to redistribute wealth from taxpayers to business owners.

    The article itself mentions how just broadening the EITC would help those currently left out, like childless individuals in poverty.

    If anything, this article makes a good case for expanding the EITC and maybe breaking it into 12 monthly payments.
     
    ChainFlow, Aug 27, 2015
    #2
  3. Briar

    Briar Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    30
    This sounds shitty, 60% of the median wage where I live is less than minimum wage. The only way this would be decent is if it matched the median.
     
    Briar, Aug 27, 2015
    #3
  4. PolishHeadlock

    PolishHeadlock Putin Belt Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    42,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phila fucking delphia
    If that's the case maybe the minimum wage is adequate in your area.
     
    PolishHeadlock, Aug 27, 2015
    #4
  5. UpaLoompa

    UpaLoompa Grand Quasiprophet of the Sakaran Apocolyps

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    24,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    My first thought too.
     
    UpaLoompa, Aug 27, 2015
    #5
  6. kpt018

    kpt018 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    24,889
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Good points here, especially the point about employers losing the incentive to pay a fair wage.

    The major issue I have is I don't believe "disincentives to work" are a factor. Besides, the law it would replace is the EARNED INCOME tax credit, meaning you have to earn income! So how does this change disincentives to work?

    Additionally, would the new law impact welfare benefits that are based on income levels? Depending on the answer, you remove the tax credit and increase their wages, so does that then disqualify them for welfare if they are now above the threshold?
     
    kpt018, Aug 27, 2015
    #6
  7. PolishHeadlock

    PolishHeadlock Putin Belt Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    42,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phila fucking delphia
    Not sure how much of an impact it would have but if you go over a certain income it lowers or elimnates your EIC so you could work more hours at the same wage and lower your EIC. In this scenario you can work more hours and it won't lower your subsidy as it's based on a salary and not income.
     
    PolishHeadlock, Aug 27, 2015
    #7
  8. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    5,998
    My current thinking on these subjects (and always subject to change as I learn more) is that programs that target wages will always fail since they're predicated on the individual having found work in the first place.

    And my issue with this specific policy is that as the employer lowers the wage, the government will only pay half of the new difference. If the employer cuts your wage by $1/hour, the government only pays $0.50 of the difference. So, you're still making less money. I'm not sure what it solves.

    Another problem is that as the area's median wage decreases, the government's assistance decreases. So there's no incentive to increase wages.
     
    panamaican, Aug 27, 2015
    #8

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...