I would venture a guess that most people in that situation could end up getting virtually all of what they paid in back out on when they filed. I am probably forgetting something, it has been a while since I handled a tax form with more than a basic difficulty.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I would venture a guess that most people in that situation could end up getting virtually all of what they paid in back out on when they filed. I am probably forgetting something, it has been a while since I handled a tax form with more than a basic difficulty.[/quote]
People making low income is the basic of basic tax return possible. 1040EZ.
You don’t get your payroll taxes back until you retire or go on SSDI…
Every dollar you earn is only $0.92 in your pocket.
Federal and state income tax is what you get back, if they withhold at all.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
First off there would be no taxes to speak pay more than likely. Unless I am forgetting something. And a minimum wage job is not supposed to get you ahead. It is merely something to help you ride out a rough patch until you can find a real job. Also, you are acting like this is all that they can work. If you cant make it, get a second job. Two part time jobs at 30 hrs a week will earn you about 11500 a piece so you end up with 23 and as you just figured up that is more than enough to live on.[/quote]
You still have to pay one side of Medicare and Soc Sec tax which is about 7.5%. There is a tax credit that you will get, but I can not think what it is called to help lower that 7.5%.[/quote]
Yes, you are still paying PR taxes. [/quote]
Is it the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps offset the PR taxes?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t get your payroll taxes back until you retire or go on SSDI…
Every dollar you earn is only $0.92 in your pocket.
Federal and state income tax is what you get back, if they withhold at all. [/quote]
Isn’t the Earned Income Tax Credit refundable even if you pay 0 income taxes?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t get your payroll taxes back until you retire or go on SSDI…
Every dollar you earn is only $0.92 in your pocket.
Federal and state income tax is what you get back, if they withhold at all. [/quote]
I was thinking there was something because I know of more than a few people that actually get back a good bit more than they actually pay in fed and state. I know it involves some qualifications for credits and what not so it is a little more than a basic only fill out 3 or 4 lines that I have gotten used to.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t get your payroll taxes back until you retire or go on SSDI…
Every dollar you earn is only $0.92 in your pocket.
Federal and state income tax is what you get back, if they withhold at all. [/quote]
Isn’t the Earned Income Tax Credit refundable even if you pay 0 income taxes?
[/quote]
Yeah, EIC is possibly one of the few forms of welfare that I support.
EIC is basically the government giving you money for working, year end bonus if you will. You have to meet certain conditions.
So while yes it fills the money lost in FICA, it is still part of the income tax, and not payroll taxes.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
…a minimum wage job is not supposed to get you ahead. It is merely something to help you ride out a rough patch until you can find a real job[/quote]
This is the issue. When I was a young person adults didn’t work minimum wage jobs. Entry level jobs were the first step toward the better job. From the end of WW2 until the mid-80s more than 70% of people achieved a standard of living that exceeded their parents. Since then the % has fallen below 20%. 70% sounds like a merit based system, 20% is a crap shoot. The median annual income in the US is 38,000 yr [that’s below 2 million in lifetime earnings]. I’m not advocating for an increase in the minimum wage; however with such a large % of people working at the lower end of the scale the end costs will be absorbed by all of us.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t get your payroll taxes back until you retire or go on SSDI…
Every dollar you earn is only $0.92 in your pocket.
Federal and state income tax is what you get back, if they withhold at all. [/quote]
I was thinking there was something because I know of more than a few people that actually get back a good bit more than they actually pay in fed and state. I know it involves some qualifications for credits and what not so it is a little more than a basic only fill out 3 or 4 lines that I have gotten used to.[/quote]
Yeah, there are a couple of refundable credits, but they aren’t SS & Med related.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]
So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?
What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?
Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was your problem. The only reason why I entered this thread was because I was curious on how minimum wage could be applied to different scenarios. Then jpc made a point that having 2 jobs would be better and you could live off of minimum wage. and I was just trying to point out that you really cant. Remember that in my break down the money spent was in best case scenario, where as the money earned is unable to be changed.
I’m not into the gov’t forcing things unless they absolutely have to. It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.
an extra .75 cent raise to our nh minimum wage would increase a persons salary by $1,560. Do you think that would really break a companies back?
I don’t see how it would be another form of welfare…not that I’m arguing against you, but I’m just not making that correlation. Could you explain further?
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t get your payroll taxes back until you retire or go on SSDI…
Every dollar you earn is only $0.92 in your pocket.
Federal and state income tax is what you get back, if they withhold at all. [/quote]
I was thinking there was something because I know of more than a few people that actually get back a good bit more than they actually pay in fed and state. I know it involves some qualifications for credits and what not so it is a little more than a basic only fill out 3 or 4 lines that I have gotten used to.[/quote]
Yeah, there are a couple of refundable credits, but they aren’t SS & Med related.
[/quote]
Yeah, I guess I wasn’t clear. I knew they weren’t related but I actually thought that the net effect between for those extra credits would net the effect of PR taxes.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]
So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?
What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?
Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was your problem. The only reason why I entered this thread was because I was curious on how minimum wage could be applied to different scenarios. Then jpc made a point that having 2 jobs would be better and you could live off of minimum wage. and I was just trying to point out that you really cant. Remember that in my break down the money spent was in best case scenario, where as the money earned is unable to be changed.
I’m not into the gov’t forcing things unless they absolutely have to. It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.
an extra .75 cent raise to our nh minimum wage would increase a persons salary by $1,560. Do you think that would really break a companies back?
I don’t see how it would be another form of welfare…not that I’m arguing against you, but I’m just not making that correlation. Could you explain further?
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[/quote]
If they increase minimum wage it doesn’t just effect minimum wage employees for the most part. Lets say I have a handful of people in high turnover positions that I decide to pay minimum wage. Then my next step up is a 1.50 an hour increase. When they raise the minimum wage do I leave those sitting at the subsequent levels the same, thereby devaluing their extra experience/skill or do I give them a raise to maintain the relevance of the next pay step? I don’t think a lot of people think about that.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]
So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?
What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?
Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was your problem. The only reason why I entered this thread was because I was curious on how minimum wage could be applied to different scenarios. Then jpc made a point that having 2 jobs would be better and you could live off of minimum wage. and I was just trying to point out that you really cant. Remember that in my break down the money spent was in best case scenario, where as the money earned is unable to be changed.
I’m not into the gov’t forcing things unless they absolutely have to. It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.
an extra .75 cent raise to our nh minimum wage would increase a persons salary by $1,560. Do you think that would really break a companies back?
I don’t see how it would be another form of welfare…not that I’m arguing against you, but I’m just not making that correlation. Could you explain further?
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[/quote]
If they increase minimum wage it doesn’t just effect minimum wage employees for the most part. Lets say I have a handful of people in high turnover positions that I decide to pay minimum wage. Then my next step up is a 1.50 an hour increase. When they raise the minimum wage do I leave those sitting at the subsequent levels the same, thereby devaluing their extra experience/skill or do I give them a raise to maintain the relevance of the next pay step? I don’t think a lot of people think about that.[/quote]
Well I said .75 not 1.50. But yes, raise their salary to .75 more per hour. You don’t have to raise everyones pay. We’re talking about raising the bare minimum to help people live more reasonable lives. Anything other than that then we’re getting into paying people what they deserve and what their job requirements are. Which I believe should be a different discussion.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]
So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?
What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?
Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was your problem. The only reason why I entered this thread was because I was curious on how minimum wage could be applied to different scenarios. Then jpc made a point that having 2 jobs would be better and you could live off of minimum wage. and I was just trying to point out that you really cant. Remember that in my break down the money spent was in best case scenario, where as the money earned is unable to be changed.
I’m not into the gov’t forcing things unless they absolutely have to. It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.
an extra .75 cent raise to our nh minimum wage would increase a persons salary by $1,560. Do you think that would really break a companies back?
I don’t see how it would be another form of welfare…not that I’m arguing against you, but I’m just not making that correlation. Could you explain further?
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[/quote]
If they increase minimum wage it doesn’t just effect minimum wage employees for the most part. Lets say I have a handful of people in high turnover positions that I decide to pay minimum wage. Then my next step up is a 1.50 an hour increase. When they raise the minimum wage do I leave those sitting at the subsequent levels the same, thereby devaluing their extra experience/skill or do I give them a raise to maintain the relevance of the next pay step? I don’t think a lot of people think about that.[/quote]
Well I said .75 not 1.50. But yes, raise their salary to .75 more per hour. You don’t have to raise everyones pay. We’re talking about raising the bare minimum to help people live more reasonable lives. Anything other than that then we’re getting into paying people what they deserve and what their job requirements are. Which I believe should be a different discussion.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstood. If I have a janitor who just started out, and I pay him minimum wage at 7.25. I have another janitor who has been there a while and he makes 8.00. Then my level A office personnel make 8.75, AA make 10.00 and so on (numbers are purely speculation). If you then raise minimum wage to 8.00, will I not need to give my senior janitor a raise to indicate is higher status with the company. Then will I not need to give my different levels of office personnel raises to indicate their increase in skill above that of a janitor?? If I don’t wont I create a feeling of under appreciation among my staff?
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]
So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?
What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?
Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was your problem. The only reason why I entered this thread was because I was curious on how minimum wage could be applied to different scenarios. Then jpc made a point that having 2 jobs would be better and you could live off of minimum wage. and I was just trying to point out that you really cant. Remember that in my break down the money spent was in best case scenario, where as the money earned is unable to be changed.
I’m not into the gov’t forcing things unless they absolutely have to. It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.
an extra .75 cent raise to our nh minimum wage would increase a persons salary by $1,560. Do you think that would really break a companies back?
I don’t see how it would be another form of welfare…not that I’m arguing against you, but I’m just not making that correlation. Could you explain further?
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[/quote]
If they increase minimum wage it doesn’t just effect minimum wage employees for the most part. Lets say I have a handful of people in high turnover positions that I decide to pay minimum wage. Then my next step up is a 1.50 an hour increase. When they raise the minimum wage do I leave those sitting at the subsequent levels the same, thereby devaluing their extra experience/skill or do I give them a raise to maintain the relevance of the next pay step? I don’t think a lot of people think about that.[/quote]
Well I said .75 not 1.50. But yes, raise their salary to .75 more per hour. You don’t have to raise everyones pay. We’re talking about raising the bare minimum to help people live more reasonable lives. Anything other than that then we’re getting into paying people what they deserve and what their job requirements are. Which I believe should be a different discussion.
[/quote]
Except that by raising minimum wage you will likely raise the cost of goods. That gallon of milk isn’t $3 anymore it’s $3.50 so the minimum wage worker can’t adjust their lifestyle at all.
That extra $1,560 per person will increase the cost of the goods sold. If a company operates on a very tight margin (1%-2%) then that $0.75 raise will either put the company in the red or earn some of the employees pink slips. Say you have 100 minimum wage employees in your warehouse, that’s an extra $156,000 in salary expense to account for. Not to mention an increase like jb mentioned. This extra cost = zero value added to the company.
You also can’t forget other costs as well. Benefits expense goes up too, so do payroll taxes, etc…
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.[/quote]
A company will pay necessary labor what it is worth in the market. It isn’t that they choose to pay low wage, it is that the skills required to do it are low or not there at all, and that labor, in terms of market are low.
If I have a job, lets call it “A”. Job A is very demanding, stressful and you need a certain level of skill to do it that requires a college degree. I offer that job to 100 candidates at a job fair. I offer it to them at 30k a year.
Will, let’s say Push offers the same job. But he offers candidates 50k to do the job.
Who do you think is going to attack the better employees?
There is a relative mountain of evidence that shows hiring the right employee and taking care of them makes you more money than temp labor. So if sustained quality employees are my goal, what should I pay my employee?
Let’s say I have job B. Job B is pouring coffee into a cup and handing it to people that drive thru. Should they make as much as people working job A? If not, what do I do with person A’s salary if I’m forced to pay people doing Job B suddenly get a $2 raise? (A 27% raise, which is insane high).
There is more here, but I’ll stop for now.
Okay. There is overhead to take into account. Typical figures are between 20-30%. So for every dollar in wages a company pays, it typically costs $1.30 to the company after it is all said and done.
So, you 1,560 is actually closer to 2,000. Now that is per year. Well if I have 50 employees, 15 of which are part time, that is 30,000. So now here are my choices:
-
I have a 30k increase in costs. So in order for my company to grow even one dollar I need a 30,001 increase in revenue, assuming all other costs are the same. ouch
-
I can trim 30k of other costs. Anyone who understands margin, and most successful people do, know cutting 30k of costs, just to break even, is a bitch. And if I cut costs, guess what costs are elastic enough to cut? Payroll costs. So I’m firing people.
-
I can take a 30k pay cut… No one else is willing to live on less, why should I eat a shit sandwich the size of 30k?
Because the government is forcing their employer to pay them more than market dictates. So rather than increase everyone’s taxes 3% and hand it to them, they force us to pay for it through the effects of MW, and the employer to hand it to them.
There is zero increase in value added, they didn’t earn the raise. Their skills are still low, still only worth X. So giving them X+2 simply is socializing the cost burden of their low skill. Which is welfare, except the government isn’t the middle man in the way that it cuts the check. But rather the middleman in that it regulates the amount of your check.
Why can’t they find their own ability?
I out earned my parents, and it isn’t like I grew up drinking Dom.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[/quote]
IMO…the answer isn’t increasing the pay for entry level work, it’s creating more positions to move on to once the entry level skills are mastered.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]
So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?
What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?
Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was your problem. The only reason why I entered this thread was because I was curious on how minimum wage could be applied to different scenarios. Then jpc made a point that having 2 jobs would be better and you could live off of minimum wage. and I was just trying to point out that you really cant. Remember that in my break down the money spent was in best case scenario, where as the money earned is unable to be changed.
I’m not into the gov’t forcing things unless they absolutely have to. It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.
an extra .75 cent raise to our nh minimum wage would increase a persons salary by $1,560. Do you think that would really break a companies back?
I don’t see how it would be another form of welfare…not that I’m arguing against you, but I’m just not making that correlation. Could you explain further?
If we want people to better themselves then we need to give them the ability to find a way to do so. Where the minimum wage is currently in nh, I don’t see how that is possible. (I’m only speaking for my state because I don’t know what the cost of living is anywhere else)
[/quote]
If they increase minimum wage it doesn’t just effect minimum wage employees for the most part. Lets say I have a handful of people in high turnover positions that I decide to pay minimum wage. Then my next step up is a 1.50 an hour increase. When they raise the minimum wage do I leave those sitting at the subsequent levels the same, thereby devaluing their extra experience/skill or do I give them a raise to maintain the relevance of the next pay step? I don’t think a lot of people think about that.[/quote]
Well I said .75 not 1.50. But yes, raise their salary to .75 more per hour. You don’t have to raise everyones pay. We’re talking about raising the bare minimum to help people live more reasonable lives. Anything other than that then we’re getting into paying people what they deserve and what their job requirements are. Which I believe should be a different discussion.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstood. If I have a janitor who just started out, and I pay him minimum wage at 7.25. I have another janitor who has been there a while and he makes 8.00. Then my level A office personnel make 8.75, AA make 10.00 and so on (numbers are purely speculation). If you then raise minimum wage to 8.00, will I not need to give my senior janitor a raise to indicate is higher status with the company. Then will I not need to give my different levels of office personnel raises to indicate their increase in skill above that of a janitor?? If I don’t wont I create a feeling of under appreciation among my staff? [/quote]
Well if you start with a company, are promoted 3 times and only make 1.75 more than you were making when you started. That company fucking sucks. I don’t agree with your scenario because I don’t think that the numbers would be that close.
So ill put my own experience in here. When I was younger I started working for a construction company. They decided to hire me at $15 per hour. I had no idea about anything behind the scenes but later on I found out that because I was hired at where I was, the next guy ahead of me got a raise.
Basically Trav started with the company making 14.50 an hour. He made it to 15 and they kept him there for quite a while (something like 2 years). When he got word that they were hiring me, he at the same time found out that they we’re going to hire me for the same pay that they were paying him.
He then used this to his benefit. He negotiated a hire salary and came to an agreement on $18 per hour. However the next guy ahead of him’s salary was not changed. Because the next guy ahead of him was in a different position that required different responsibility.
So. I got the salary I wanted. Trav Got the salary he wanted. Dave(manager) didn’t give a fuck because he was making the salary he wanted and again was on a different level. John (boss) didn’t blink an eye, and the entire construction company went on its merry way making the boss a good profit as well as paying the employees what they needed to live a reasonable life.
Also, our price did not change, we just got more done in a shorter period of time. So in this case I cannot find a way that anyone was negatively affected by this.