Even at $8 bucks an hour, at 52 weeks, that amounts to $16,640. This is no where near a living wage in this state. We have a significant amount of working poor who are working hard but no doubt still need Mass Health, housing subsides and other forms of assistance to live here.
This amounts to government subsidies–not to individuals–but businesses that are not paying a living wage. Why should Wal-Mart or whoever pays less than $8 per hour and then the state has to pay assistance for their workers to live in this state with decent housing and health care.
MITT IN ’08!
PS) Who can find the link to Mitt promising to increase the minimum wage in the â02 campaign?
Please share widely!
It’d be tough to get by on $16,640 per year. Probably the minimum wage should be set at something like $20 per hour. No?
whats a single mom with one kid get in earned income credit on 16640, how bout 20k how much in taxes do they really pay?
A single parent, earning $16,640 with one dependent would probably pay no Federal income tax, but would receive as a refund EIC of $477. She would however pay about $290 in MA income tax.
<
p>
At $20,000, the EIC would (net) drop to about $71. That is, she’d pay no tax, but would receive a check from the Federal of $71. She would pay about $487 in MA income tax.
<
p>
Despite all the Liberal hoop-la, MA income tax is interestingly regressive, contrasted against, say, NY and CA with their variety of deductions and graduated rates.
have an earened income credti which is about 15% of the FEIC?
sure
Right you (and DOR) are.
<
p>
Never a good tax guy around when you need one!
<
p>
Rewind, and it looks like this:
<
p>
16640 earned income with one dependent kid, filing single
Fed refund is: $2775
MA refund is: $369
Now that I’ve corrected my calcs I see that a single parent earning minimum wage of $8.00 per hour for 2080 hours per year with no wage withholding takes home the $16,640 then gets a Fed refund of $2775 and a Ma refund of $369. Total of $19784.
<
p>
Suppose Minimum wage was not raised to $8.00. Let’s say $7.25 per hour or $15,080 for 2080 hours. Take home is then (again assuming no w/h) $15,080 with a Fed refund of $3,162 and a MA refund of $383. Total of $18,625.
<
p>
So, a minimum wage increase of 75 cents per hour appears to only yields a .55 cent per hour raise.
by increasing the minimum wage from 7.25 to 8 will that save us as taxpayers 14 dollars (383-369)in money we don;t have to pay out as and EIC?
Taxpayers, consumers, businesses.
<
p>
But that’s not the objection that economists have with minimum wage.
<
p>
In fact, many tax policy makers argue that EIC is far more efficient if wealth shifting between economic demographics is your goal.
This will probably out me as a heretic, but does every full-time job need to feed a family of four?
<
p>
This is, of course, apart from the current discussion, but it’s a philisophical question about the living wage debate that I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone address.
<
p>
Should every family earn enough to live? Of course. Should every job pay each employee as if they’re the sole breadwinner in a family? That’s a different question.
It’s an interesting question. No, we shouldn’t assume that every teenager working a summer job needs to support a family (though some do), but we can’t assume that all low-skill (and low pay) jobs are held by people who don’t need as much income.
<
p>
We can’t set salaries based on need, so what’s the solution? Restrict what kinds of jobs people can have? If you’re the family’s sole bread winner, you can’t work at McDonald’s? If you’re home from college for the summer you can’t get a job at an office that pays $15 an hour? Then you have the issue of bread-winners with limited education and skill-sets. They don’t have the experience or training to get higher paying jobs so they take two minimum-wage jobs (McDonald’s and Wal-Mart!) and spend less time with their kids.
<
p>
Maybe one solution could be better skills training (and that’s something that could be more need-based). The teenager looking for spending money isn’t in a situation where he needs to get a better paying job. The mother of two is, so she gets fast-tracked through a computer course or some equivalent program. Then she has the training for a slightly better job while the high-schooler is stuck flipping burgers.
<
p>
The variable that can’t be fixed is the job market. Even with training, there may not be readily available jobs at any given time. The training program would have to be flexible enough to train for the right jobs for a given market or economy, and even then there’s no guarantee that jobs would be readily available.
<
p>
It would be a huge undertaking, of course, and I have a hard time seeing the country pony up for the cost, but it’s an idea.
<
p>
So what’s wrong with it? What are the shortfalls?
You left out the manditory payment into Social Security. The take home pay is not as much as you calculated.
Simply for comparibility between the 2 data points. SS and Medicare aren’t ‘mandatory’ for all.