Because it makes it sound like only minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation.

Nobody's wages have kept up.

6/6/2014 9:44:16 AM

There is no law that wages must keep up with inflation. It is entirely reasonable for everything to be working just fine and have real wages fall over time. It just means mankinds productive capacity is not keeping pace with resource depletion and population growth. The rampant industrialization of China, for example, exerts a major pull on resources and capital which will make Americans poorer than they otherwise would be, all else being equal, which it is not.

That said, things are not working fine, especially our regulatory environment. Adverse regulation, adverse cultural shifts, rampant cronyism, and regime uncertainty are clearly taking a major toll on productivity and income distribution. For example, if the king threatens to raise taxes to ruinous levels, people will stop building factories. With fewer factories, those that remain will face less competition and profits will boom. But, as society has fewer factories than it otherwise would have had, it is less productive than it otherwise would have been, so there is less production to go around and more of it goes to the remaining factory owners. Worker wages fall precipitously even though the King never threatened them with anything.

[Edited on June 7, 2014 at 7:31 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/7/2014 7:30:03 AM

since wages don't follow productivity, your argument is nonsense

6/7/2014 7:58:12 AM

In so far as economics has drawn conclusions about how the world works, one of them is that compensation usually tracks productivity:


It obviously presumes markets are somewhat free.

[Edited on June 8, 2014 at 7:27 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/8/2014 6:58:34 AM

God, I love the internet, lol.

I expected a Cato institute eye roller, but instead was pleasantly surprised to be introduced to Brian Holtz's web page, while tracking down that image.

All I can say is: what an adventure, his blog was especially enlightening. Where else on the internet can you get interesting economic analysis right next to your 9/11 truther theories and a listing of everything Brian Holtz carries in his pockets on a daily basis (which appears to be about 18 lbs of survival gear: http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2014/05/everyday-carry.html)

Still, that doesn't necessarily make his graph wrong. Unfortunately, he doesn't give us a lot of information on how that graph was compiled.

We've all seen the graph of stagnant wages and productivity splitting off and not tracking together sometime in the 70s or early 80s. There ARE some problems and misrepresentations in that popular graph, and we can see Brian probably wanted to take care of some of that by using a different inflation adjustment than CPI and tracking output hourly. What he doesn't mention is if he used average or median values for hourly compensation, that makes a huge difference and I'm guessing by using the average he is able to get them to track much more closely.

Luckily the internetz provideth.

Here is a report from Heritage that basically goes through the same efforts Brian did:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together


We could probably go on for pages arguing if productivity needs to be depreciated or which inflation adjustment factor is best, but I doubt that would be productive nor do I really consider myself qualified to really delve that deeply into it.

But EPI has a great post on the Heritage work, and it basically shows that the biggest factor in getting compensation to track productivity is by using MEAN compensation instead of Median compensation. By using the Mean they capture the ballooning 1%'s compensation, which has grown faster than productivity and is high enough to pull compensation up to productivity. If we fall back to the median, we start to see the more familiar break in compensation and productivity.
http://www.epi.org/blog/compensationproductivity-link-broken-vast/




[Edited on June 8, 2014 at 10:40 AM. Reason : link: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4v-change-hourly-productivity/]

6/8/2014 10:36:11 AM

LoL. The image was from a google image search and looked similar to what I remembered from school so I used it.

Again, it depends what you're trying to figure out from your graph. The statement made was that worker pay does not follow productivity. I guess there could be a dispute over what the word 'follow' means. Maybe it is too strong a word. My more wordy definition is "tends to follow over time absent interference." So, yes, the two will diverge given interference, and compensation will lag behind and never really catch productivity (must leave room for profit). But, given the presumption that "markets are somewhat free", which is debatable nowadays, if productivity goes up, real compensation, when you include all workers, will follow eventually.

The problem with your graphs is that they can produce absurd outcomes by excluding nearly all worker compensation from the calculation. For example, if I structured society so that the top 51% of workers earned identical wages and 100% of the income while the bottom 49% earned absolutely nothing (zombie slaves, for example), then the graph would produce an absurdity of real median compensation exceeding productivity by nearly a factor of two. (productivity equals 1.0, so real median compensation would be 1.0 * 100p / 50.1p = 1.996) which is absurd. As such, using median compensation should always be absurd, unless for whatever reason the only thing you're interested in is that one median worker.

If what you are interested in is the inequality among workers, then look at that directly: real compensation of the top 1% versus the bottom whatever. Income distribution issues should have nothing to do with productivity and merely muddles the question that was at hand.

Of course, your graphs make the further sin of also excluding not just most workers from their calculations, but many forms of compensation. It is absurd to use only monetary wages in a graph when you know full well that the worker is also being paid in-kind through healthcare and pensions. These things are not free and cost real resources which must be paid for from productivity. Do I need to explain why excluding these from the calculation can produce absurd results? Imagine a world where workers are paid exclusively via non-monetary means, resulting in a graph showing workers getting 0% of productivity, or a world where workers are expected to provide their employers a lump of valuable gold every year, resulting in a graph where again real wages far exceed productivity (the workers are paid monetarily for their productive work plus the price of the lump of gold).

Your graphs aside, if the theory was that capitalist profits were eating up compensation, then I guess this graph would have been a better thing to post and show that isn't really the case. But I had no idea why he thought the two didn't have anything to do with each other.


Which brings us full circle. Statistics is fun, but what is the topic of conversation here? I felt like throwing out the possibility that worker productivity could fall over time, which apparently resulted in a debate over how best to graphically represent productivity. The internet is fun

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 8:28 AM. Reason : .,.]

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 8:34 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/9/2014 8:27:09 AM

In most cases, one should always be using the median when dealing with highly skewed, empirical data (unless the data is transformed[log, ln, etc], or if outliers are removed). You may be able to make the case that in a purely theoretical model of the economy that using the mean is ok.

In your example, would not the average be similarly wrong in this highly skewed situation. Average compensation would be ~0.5P so that the ratio of productivity to wages would be 100p/.5p = 200? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your math?

You should recheck my graphs, they all show compensation, not wages. I agree with you on this point.

I don't really understand the argument you are making with the CP/GDP graph. You are arguing that "capitalist profits" aren't eating up compensation and then post a graph of corporate profits soaring as a percentage of GDP. In FRED, CP is corporate profits after taxes, not compensation.

6/9/2014 8:40:55 PM

Quote :

"In your example, would not the average be similarly wrong in this highly skewed situation. Average compensation would be ~0.5P so that the ratio of productivity to wages would be 100p/.5p = 200? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your math? "

Well, I don't see how. So, state assumptions. For this hypothetical it was a given that profits as a share of economic output were zero, the economy consisted of 1000 workers, and all workers were equally productive (1.0). Given this, the ratio of productivity to average (mean) compensation would always be 1.0, as there is no where else for it to go. In the example, the top 50.1% earn 1.996 compensation the bottom 49.9% earned nothing...the average would be 1.996 * .501 + 0 * .499 = 1.0 with a median compensation of 1.996. But, change the socio-economic class and thus compensation of one worker, say that median worker dies as turns zombie slave, so now only 49.9% earn 1.996, and it flips completely: as the average includes 1000 workers, changing one worker won't change much, so the average is still 0.996 from 1.0, but the median compensation crashes from 1.996 to 0.000.

So, again, unless for some reason we are only interested in that one median worker, using median to describe a large group of people seems absurd to me.

6/12/2014 7:28:21 AM

i see your point and both usage of the average and median have their faults; however, median likely communicates the situation better.

the point of using median is simply to eliminate implications that the whole of america is doing better despite increased hours and productivity gains. By using median it illustrates for us that despite large gains most are not doing better. When using average, a reader could infer that everyone is doing better.

6/12/2014 10:21:29 AM

The statement that started this was "wages don't follow productivity", which is bunk unless you play the median versus mean and wages versus compensation games. I accept it is possible dtownral sole intention was to point out "things can sometimes be complicated", but was not what he said.

Also, if your intention is to discuss growing inequality, as I showed above, using median is absurd, since it is just as likely to show America doing awesome (Median compensation is up 96%!) when what really happened was compensation for 49% of American workers fell to zero. I seriously doubt that in such a scenario you yourself would be using median compensation. As such, you should not be using it right now. If you intend to talk about growing inequality, then actual statistics measuring that exist, no need to monkey with median anything.

[Edited on June 12, 2014 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/12/2014 12:24:37 PM

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/fast-food-workers-strike-seeking-dollar15-wage-political-muscle/ar-CCbBHu?li=AAa0dzB

Quote :

"Kheila Cox, 38, is walking off her job as a $10-an-hour baggage handler at Boston's Logan Airport to join a march this afternoon from Faneuil Hall to the Massachusetts State House. "It's not just the financial piece, it's also about the dignity," says Cox, who has seven children."

lol

11/10/2015 3:05:02 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/29/the-decline-of-the-middle-class-is-causing-even-more-economic-damage-than-we-realized/

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16121.pdf

We finally have evidence that marginal propensity to consume and its relation to income inequality is absolutely killing the economy. This IMF report suggests that current income inequality levels are costing the US $400 billion PER YEAR in consumer spending.

It doesn't suggest that a higher min. wage is the solution, and neither does Larry Summers in the WaPo article, but this is EXACTLY the mechanism I was discussing on the previous page and that's why I posted here. It's how an increase in min wage (or any policy that reduces income inequality) can actually increase employment.

It is so significant that this has finally been quantified. Modern economics is really putting the final few nails in trickle down/supply-side economics. Spread the word.

9/29/2016 9:16:18 PM

i wish i gave enough fucks to refute that keynesian bullshit

why fight for $15? why not fight for $100?

[Edited on September 29, 2016 at 9:46 PM. Reason : af]

9/29/2016 9:44:44 PM

You're probably not mentally capable.

9/29/2016 9:46:10 PM

Quote :

"why fight for $15? why not fight for $100?"

This is the best question to ask those who want to force employers to reduce hours or fire staff to pay them more than they're worth. If you want the government to point a gun to my employer's head and demand $15, why not $1000 an hour? Where does it stop?

Workers of the world unite!

9/29/2016 9:54:57 PM

Damn, I should have been smarter and started a new thread.

Maybe you guys should flip back through this thread and look for answers to your questions.

My goal was to point out how powerful a concept propensity to spend is and how little it is utilized in our current policy discussions.

I shoulda known that bumping a thread on min wage would garner knee jerk reactions

9/29/2016 10:17:51 PM

does that IMF paper even say why we should be concerned with increasing consumption? seems like it just takes keynesian principles for granted and then says "hey, if poor people had more money, they'd consume more". it just assumes that more consumption will make things better. i don't see how it puts a nail in the coffin of supply-side economics.

we really should just go ahead and do the helicopter money thing so it can fail and we can put this argument to rest.

[Edited on September 29, 2016 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ds]

9/29/2016 10:26:59 PM

fwiw, i don't care for trickle down economics, either. i think the Austrians have it right.

9/29/2016 10:37:21 PM

Quote :

"no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories."

-Thomas Sowell, on "trickle-down economics"

9/29/2016 10:50:55 PM

Increased consumer spending means increasing growth, that is, greater growth in GDP. It goes like this:
Poors get extra cash -> they spend every dime of it -> consumer demand is increased -> good businesses profits increase -> they reinvest to meet new demand (rather than spend it on stock buybacks) -> the virtuous cycle continues

$400 billion is like 2% of GDP. So imagine if the economy was growing at 4% instead of our current ~2%. That puts us into mid 90s to early 2000s mode, we'd be killing it.


And I did introduce some of my bias into my original post. I've not fully read the IMF paper but I doubt it give specific policy proposals on reducing income inequality. Min. wage, EITC, progressive taxes, healthcare, these are ideas I was subbing in to address inequality.


^the problem here is that the Venn diagram of Austrian peeps and "trickle-down" peeps is pretty significant for things they'd like to see happen to the economy. Abolish min wage, cut taxes especially on capital, deregulate capital markets, etc etc etc. they both, as their end games, tend to empower capital over everything else and that to me, at least if you rely on recent history, tends to be detrimental to workers.

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 6:44 AM. Reason : Our economy is lacking capital (supply), it's lacking demand, and it's been that way for 2 decades]

9/30/2016 6:32:06 AM

I guess the biggest problem is every time you raise the minimum wage you basically have to pay everyone else more and it all just cancels out. You think if a McDonalds employee is making 15 an hour I am not going to ask for a $7 an hour raise as well? Then my employer has to raise prices on everything to compensate for the additional salaries so now consumers have to pay more for everything and the cycle continues.

I do believe that anyone who works full time in this country should be able to make a decent living. However, any thoughts that raising the minimum wage, especially by that much at once, is going to help the economy doesn't really make sense.

9/30/2016 8:24:32 AM

Quote :

" especially by that much at once"

Raises are usually phased in over a number of years

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 8:39 AM. Reason : But yeah I think expanding the middle class will lead to good economic things ]

9/30/2016 8:37:56 AM

Just tax the 1% and cut checks to the 99%. Why dick around with minimum wages?

9/30/2016 8:41:02 AM

I think the biggest problem is that every time you raise the minimum wage, you put people out of work. Everyone agrees that when the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down, but we're supposed to believe that the same principle doesn't apply to labor.

^^^^like I said, why not just make it simple and take the helicopter money approach?

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM. Reason : afds]

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 8:48 AM. Reason : Autocorrect]

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 8:49 AM. Reason : Carats]

9/30/2016 8:47:09 AM

Quote :

"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.""

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

9/30/2016 9:04:10 AM

If the past 30 odd years have demonstrated anything, it's that money trickles up, not down. The lowest earners are the ones who spend the most, as a percentage of their income, while the top of the wealth pyramid tend to hoard their wealth.

It certainly stands to reason as well as the above cited economic research that a minimum wage increase would have a stimulative effect on the economy.

Quote :

"Everyone agrees that when the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down, "

only for things with elastic demand. Inelastic demand isn't affected by cost swings. Companies have already optimized staffing to skeletal levels, so it'd hurt companies to cut staffing for minimum wage jobs further. Also, as demonstrated in places like Seattle, who've already raised minimum wages, there hasn't been a negative impact on the labor market:

sauce: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/15-wage-has-little-impact-on-seattles-thriving-labor-market-report-suggests/

9/30/2016 9:17:31 AM

Quote :

"You think if a McDonalds employee is making 15 an hour I am not going to ask for a $7 an hour raise as well?"

You can ask, but you won't get. There would be no significant political support for raising hourly rates at higher echelons. It's not like you're going to say "Fuck this!," quit, then take a pay cut taking one of the new $15/hr jobs.

Quote :

"Just tax the 1% and cut checks to the 99%. Why dick around with minimum wages?"

Something like this has been suggested by economists and politicians of all political flavors for some time now:

message_topic.aspx?topic=647240

---

I'm curious about some of the issues on the periphery of the minimum wage discussion, particularly how the roles of certain kinds of employment have changed. We say "anybody who works should be able to earn a living wage," but plenty of jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. The understanding was that they provided a small income stream to people who weren't supposed to be full participants in the labor market, like high school and college students. When I slung dogs at The Pet Pad my junior/senior year at NCSU, I wasn't expecting to be able to live for the rest of my life off of that. I wanted money for beer. But put an adult in the same job, and suddenly it becomes pressing that they be able to support their families for life.

9/30/2016 11:09:52 AM

Quote :

"http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/"

i, too, have links: https://www.minimumwage.com/2014/02/about-those-600-economists-who-support-a-10-10-minimum-wage/

i'm sure we could compile a list of 600 economists who oppose a minimum wage. wouldn't change your mind, just like your list won't change mine.

Quote :

"only for things with elastic demand. Inelastic demand isn't affected by cost swings. Companies have already optimized staffing to skeletal levels, so it'd hurt companies to cut staffing for minimum wage jobs further."

are you saying that the demand for labor is perfectly inelastic, so no one would lose their job? cause if you raise the price floor for labor, some folks are gonna lose their job. if it were perfectly inelastic, there would be no reason to stop at $15. in other words, the same reason we don't set min wage at $100 is the same reason we shouldn't raise it to $15 (or why we shouldn't have a min wage at all ).

Quote :

"Also, as demonstrated in places like Seattle, who've already raised minimum wages, there hasn't been a negative impact on the labor market: sauce: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/15-wage-has-little-impact-on-seattles-thriving-labor-market-report-suggests/"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/26/seattles-minimum-wage-rise-is-reducing-employment-in-seattle-i-was-right-in-predicting-this/#2b96ad64e6c8

i can sit here and trade links with you all day

9/30/2016 1:02:41 PM

Quote :

"are you saying that the demand for labor is perfectly inelastic, so no one would lose their job? cause if you raise the price floor for labor, some folks are gonna lose their job. if it were perfectly inelastic, there would be no reason to stop at $15. in other words, the same reason we don't set min wage at $100 is the same reason we shouldn't raise it to $15 (or why we shouldn't have a min wage at all )."

We definitely should have a minimum wage, if we didn't employers would exploit peoples' ignorance to keep them underpaid (which is actually happening right now). Look how many people are so easily swayed by trump, that can be convinced that science doesn't matter in terms of polls or climate change. People are either gullible or too busy to fight for what they deserve. In short, for the market to work, it relies on all parties to have the same information, and this is rarely the case in the real world.

The reason people look at $15 and not $100 is that $100 is well above the livable wage level. When people are paid below a living wage, they can't save up money to buy a car or house or invest in education, or to take the risk of getting a better job, it drags on the entire economy. But i bet you could make a $100/hr min wage work if it were phased in over like 30 years...

But I do see a compelling argument that such a high minimum wage is too blunt force way to raise wages. Seems like maybe trying to figure out some tax incentive where businesses get a break or pay less taxes depending average worker pay might be a better angle to try, i think it does make sense for high schoolers or student workers to have a wage more reflective of their lack of experience.

10/1/2016 2:11:23 AM

10/1/2016 9:53:13 AM

Quote :

"I think the biggest problem is that every time you raise the minimum wage, you put people out of work. Everyone agrees that when the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down, but we're supposed to believe that the same principle doesn't apply to labor."

In a vacuum, holding all other factors equal, yes, a rise in price should make demand go down. But there is a more significant factor than price in determining demand for labor at a given company and that is consumer demand for the product they are producing. If the price of labor increases, but a company also has a significant increase in demand for their product they aren't going to fire anyone, they may even hire to meet the new consumer demand.

This is exactly the point I'm making with that IMF paper. An additional $400 billion of consumer demand for products in the economy would likely actually create jobs as businesses seek to meet all of that new consumer demand.

This is exactly where supply-side economics has let us down. It assumes, or even celebrates, the multiplicative effects of capital circulating through the economy, but doesn't even recognize the multiplicative effects that consumer demand can have. We are awash in capital right now from 3 decades of supply side policies. It's past time we goose the demand side of things, ultimately, it will make our economy stronger and more resilient.








.........

If you read this thread you'll see that many of us, including myself, are kinda "meh" about the min wage, as there are better ways of tackling inequality. It's just that the min wage happens to be "easier" politically. Regardless, my main point is that our policy discussions have grossly underestimated the economic effects of building/maintaining the middle class. Even though I think this is rapidly changing.

10/1/2016 9:54:51 AM

so

helicopter money

10/1/2016 10:17:03 AM

^helicopter money is one option. Although not the best option IMO.

Do you hate the concept of a helicopter drop because it won't work, it's not "fair", or because it just sounds outrageous?

10/1/2016 10:28:36 AM

i don't like it because it's just another shot of heroin. we need rehab, but rehab is painful. so we'll just kick the can a little further down the road.

10/1/2016 11:02:55 AM

I'd agree, that's why I don't think it's the best option. A more sustained approach would be preferred, especially now that we can say there has been some recovery in the economy.

10/1/2016 1:06:22 PM

i feel like you and i have different ideas of what rehab would look like.

10/1/2016 1:26:12 PM

I'm not sure we even agree on what we're addicted to.

10/1/2016 2:46:57 PM

I don't see how raising the minimum wage in this day and age could lead to anything other than an acceleration of automation replacing jobs. The robotics/mechatronics industries have advanced at an exponential rate, and a major change in minimum wage would be a huge stimulus to that industry.

While I would be self served to support anything that would increase automation due to me working in the energy sector, my concern is that a raise in minimum wage will be accompanied by a drastic increase in the number of people relying on government benefits instead of an increase in former minimum wage employees obtaining additional training and becoming skilled workers. Some of the largest supporters of an increase in minimum wage would benefit from having a larger percentage of the country dependent on government benefits. They're not concerned about providing a living wage to their constituents, but more so about getting them dependent on other government programs and building their voter block.

The other concern I have with a minimum wage hike is that it could potentially lead to an increase in illegal immigration and illegal workers working under the table with employers trying to avoid the minimum wage laws. Unfortunately, our politicians are more interested in talking about border security instead of talking about penalizing employers taking advantage of cheap illegal labor. Since immigrants are more likely to be low skilled and working in minimum wage jobs, they get the double whammy of both losing jobs due to minimum wage hikes and being easily exploitable by employers trying to pay them less than minimum wage under the table.

10/1/2016 11:07:38 PM

Awwww shit, son.

10/2/2016 12:08:42 AM

Automation replacing jobs and letting everyone live off of the productivity of the machines is the Marxist utopia I pine for.

10/3/2016 8:58:36 AM

I don't share the concerns about illegal immigration. The factors that have been reducing that over the past few years - political climate and lack of jobs - would not go away with an increased minimum wage.

Automation concerns me, but then it does that independently of wage concerns. The unfortunate takeaway of the Great Recession is that employers learned to go as lean as possible on employees, replacing them with automation. Bumping up the minimum wage may speed up that process, but to me that's a problem at the margin. If those jobs were going to go anyway, better they go now and everyone else be a little better off.

And it bears mentioning that at the extreme end of the spectrum, automation gives us ^ scenario, where the robots are doing pretty much everything, at which point the only way any of us stay alive is by getting a minimum wage bolstered by automated production.

---

I want to know what the opponents of minimum wage suggest. NeuseRvrRat, we get it, you think the minimum wage is dumb. So what should we do instead?

[Edited on October 3, 2016 at 9:16 AM. Reason : this is one area where I'm always torn. Minimum wage doesn't seem to work. Neither does status quo]

10/3/2016 9:14:01 AM

Let the free market do its job.

[Edited on October 3, 2016 at 9:51 AM. Reason : Not just in labor, but in money, banking, etc. ]

10/3/2016 9:50:40 AM

The capitalist free market has no job or intention, it's not a force of nature. It's a human creation, like the wheel and the microchip.

We're in an era where the line between capital and labor is blurring because of automation/robotics, and a system that overvalues capital and undervalues labor is not a benefit to human society-- which is the true "job" of the economy, to benefit all humans.

10/3/2016 11:02:11 AM

What standard are you using to declare something overvalued or undervalued? What value is more correct than that set by the free market (no government meddling, no price controls, no crony capitalism, etc.)?

[Edited on October 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM. Reason : Step out of the central planning paradigm for a minute and think about it]

10/3/2016 11:18:57 AM

fwiw, i would support an expansion of the EITC or any other legislation that lowers taxes on anybody

10/3/2016 10:14:03 PM

ZOMG REDISTRIBUTIVE FASCISTS

10/4/2016 7:39:01 AM

Letting people keep more of what they earned is not redistributing

10/4/2016 7:46:26 AM

I could be wrong, but at the lower end of the EITC don't you receive more money than you've paid?

http://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/earned-income-tax-credit-small-benefits-large-costs

[Edited on October 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM. Reason : Cato link, let me speak your language.]

10/4/2016 7:49:23 AM

yeah EITC is refundable, able to get more back than paid in

10/4/2016 7:52:17 AM

It's a pretty small percentage of folks and I figure by the time you factor in all the other taxes they're paying, then they're still getting fucked either way.

10/4/2016 9:31:15 AM