In a recent article in the Janesville Messenger, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute explains that more welfare will result in more poverty. He claims the NY Times and leading Democrats complaints about how George W. Bush and his Republican Congress have slashed anti-poverty programs are misguided. In fact, he writes that last year the federal government spent $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since Bush took office.
But wait a second, if spending to fight poverty has increased under Bush, is it possible that his economic agenda produced a greater population of poor people? Weren’t the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and the tax cut on dividends supposed to generate a more prosperous society, thereby reducing the pool of eligible recipients for federal assistance? Isn’t our great Bush economy supposed to put more money in everyone's pockets and lift people out of poverty? First and foremost, every presidents national economic plan should be an antipoverty plan. How do you explain the Bush tax cut plan along with his failure to raise the minimum wage as an antipoverty plan. Is it possible that policies that increase poverty will result in more welfare?
This right-wing brainwashing goes on and on regularly in the Janesville Messenger. Consider the editorial on Oct. 8th, titled “Tax cuts OK; not tax code.” This editorial is an annual ritual by the Messenger, where they complain that despite the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the rich are still paying too great of a percentage of the Federal taxes at the same time the poor are paying too little. They mention that people who earn $35,000 a year paid 8.54 percent of their income in Federal taxes, but under Bush they paid 5.12 percent. A 40 percent decrease, clearly they say, all incomes benefited from the tax cuts. But in real dollars the difference of 3.42 percent amounts to $1,197, nothing to sneeze at, but barely enough to keep pace with rising real estate taxes, health insurance or energy costs. It could also buy you a new muffler for your car. The article doesn’t elaborate on the percentages the rich saved in taxes. I can't blame them, but you better believe it was much greater than 3.54 percent of an income closer to ten times $35,000. The savings? Can anyone say a brand new Lexus every year.
Moreover the Messenger explains, how millions of workers earning less than $25,000 a year have been removed from the tax rolls altogether, that this is a worthy consolation to not being paid enough. In 2000, 29 million tax returns paid no Federal tax, four years later under Bush, the number rose to 43 million. In just four short years, 14 million more people do not earn enough to pay taxes, yet the Republicans in charge will swear their taxcuts lift all boats. These numbers are proof the Bush national economic plan is a total failure. On top of this the Republican Party has denied an increase in wages to those who need it the most, for the past 9 years!
Minimum wage earners deserve more than a living wage, they deserve a taxable one as well. The tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked as these numbers show, its time to roll them back or pay workers what they deserve.
4 comments:
I would suspect that the more people making under $25,000 a year if broken down a little more would show that most of those jobs are part-time employees or second incomes in a household. I would also assume that our population has risen and more teenagers are in that category. Having a starting wage is a benchmark that businesess can use when they want to hire help. They don't have to pay this wage they can pay higher than the starting wage. That would really reley on what the employee brings to the table what skills etc. that's the determining point of what an employer would offer the person for a starting wage. If your unskilled and not much experiance why would you pay that person the same as someone who knows the job has done the same kind of work has a lot of background in that line of work. The starting wage is also a incentive for the person to stay at the job work their way up the ladder and make more money. As an employer I would want an employee to move up the ladder in the company and be an asset to the company.
There really is no such thing as unskilled labor. When you need a "body" to perform even mundane tasks as cleaning or lifting, everybodies time is valuable. As far as I'm concerned, if the job requires any training, it is "skilled." No doubt the complexities of the business world would not handle a sudden increase in the minimum wage like I suggest. But over a period of two years, its doable.
Whatever is the reason to be paid so little, everything else for a minimum wage earner stays the same. When a minimum wage worker goes grocery shopping or fills their tank, the cashier does not say "Because your wages are low we will give you a discount" People must be compensated for their time and taxed for their level of earnings.
When those people go to the grocery store with their new wages they will find out that the prices in the store have gone up. They are paying more for services and food. They don't get as much back from their tax returns. They will soon find out that they are on paper making more money but, they will still be in the same place as they were before the new found minimum wage.
They don't get as much back from their tax returns.
That is exactly my point. Our government is subsidizing workers who are not getting paid enough, in turn then subsidizing company profits and dividends. Pay the workers more and more taxes will be paid without a tax hike.
With all the crazy decisions going around in government without any concern for the consequences, raising the minimum wage substantially would be the least to worry about.
Post a Comment