|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
WampaLord posted:Getting a lump sum once a year as opposed to an increase in every single paycheck is much much worse, for reasons that should be obvious. No, this way they can invest it in the stock market
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Hearing this in a Hillary Clinton voice like some alt-reality where she's a Canadian politician and claims the Polish call her their Babcia as she pulls a box of pierogies out of her purse. Kathleen Wynne basically is an Ontario Clintonite.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
eitc is terrible because it's hard for the poor to make use of in p much every way. it's hard for someone living paycheck to paycheck to wait a full year to get eitc money. it's hard for them to fill out the paperwork to claim eitc on their own, and if they gently caress up then they have an IRS auditor breathing down their necks. i don't know why new democrats are so in love with tax credits
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Getting a lump sum once a year as opposed to an increase in every single paycheck is much much worse, for reasons that should be obvious. Yes, the EITC would be better if it were added automatically to paychecks. That's easy to solve. you've articulated exactly why conservatives prefer the minimum wage to both the EITC and welfare. The impact on deficits and the tax base doesn't impact the efficacy of the program as an anti-poverty measure, though. Part of the reason conservatives prefer the minimum wage is that it doesn't redistribute as much income from the rich to the poor--deficits get paid for by taxes eventually. And if we're going to quibble about taxes and deficits, the EITC increases tax revenue through exactly the same mechanism that the minimum wage does--it boosts demand by giving money to people more likely to spend it. If a minimum wage hike is paid for from business profits, it might actually reduce tax income because business profits, and the incomes of rich people, are taxed at higher rates than the incomes of the poor. Last, raising the minimum wage also increases the cost of unrelated government programs because it has to pay some laborers higher wages. This is actually happening right now with after-school programs in California.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually the western Canadian polish community has no greater friend than me, although they do chafe at the suggestion they need fixing. Bill Clinton not British Columbia, you dishonest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Another issue with the EITC from a broader economic perspective is that its payout to single taxpayers is very very limited, and you are essentially leaving out a giant part of the workforce by focusing on it beyond the already stated issues. Also, the EITC is calculated through the budget which is almost less preferable (Trump budget is already slashing parts of the safety net as it is). Also, I think it needs to be said minimum wage and near minimum wage workers are not necessarily the same, and often near-minimum wages come from poorer households (but nevertheless are effective by minimum wage increases). By focusing only on minimum wage workers you lose most of what is going on especially since literal minimum wage workers often pull in students working in fast food. (I think this mentioned 30-40 times previously in other threads). Personally, I think the minimum wage should be raised on a regional level continuously until it provides at least some time of livable wage for that region, that may be $13 dollars in some regions or $18 dollars in others. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Personally, I think the minimum wage should be raised on a regional level continuously until it provides at least some time of livable wage for that region, that may be $13 dollars in some regions or $18 dollars in others. i disagree with this cause it makes it harder for people who live in poorer areas to eventually enter richer areas, and it makes it easier for companies to exploit workers in poorer areas. we don't want companies entering poor areas cause they have lower minimum wage and then making sure these areas never become richer edit: the argument a higher minimum wage will hurt small businesses in these areas is dumb too. the only jobs i had working for a very small business had me earning more than minimum wage. all the megacorp businesses never paid better than min wage though, and a higher min wage from them will draw money into these areas. Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:42 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
The EITC is the largest federal anti-poverty program by a large margin. It transferred about 70 billion dollars to about 30 million households last year. It's not perfect, and it could be improved. There's no reason why it can't be distributed more frequently or expanded to provide more relief to workers without dependents. But it's a little strange that I'm defending it from attacks from the left that it expands the deficit and is vulnerable to republicans loving with the budget. These arguments seem equally relevant to, say, single payer healthcare.
JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
The 2016 cut-off for EITC for a single person with no children was $14,880 (not making that up) adjusted gross income. Plus, for example, $6000 in deductions gives one $20,880 in gross income which comes out to $10.04 per hour at 40 hours a week. Made $10.10/hour? You get nothing. Also your Earned Income must be less than $14,880 in total so hope you weren't working 40+ hours a week! And what do you get for working a full time job at less than $10 an hour? A whole whopping $506 for 2016. Now if you claim children you get a bit more ($500 a month--with 3 or more kids and its one lump sum for the year) but for single, childless people the EITC is a garbage method of redistribution/welfare. IRS 2016 EITC info edit: $70 billion to 30 million households comes out to $2,333 avg per household, or less than $200 a month. It's a pittance. SgtMongoose fucked around with this message at 21:55 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Nobody's defending the currently implemented EITC as a perfectly sufficient anti poverty program.Ardennes posted:Personally, I think the minimum wage should be raised on a regional level continuously until it provides at least some time of livable wage for that region, that may be $13 dollars in some regions or $18 dollars in others. Personally I think the minimum wage should be raised on a regional level until it starts negatively impacting employment and/or prices and whatever difference is left between that and a living wage should get filled in with the EITC. But, as always, the best solution is more welfare.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
varying the minwage by region leaves a lot of room for companies and local governments to gently caress people over and dissuading that would require a lot more overhead in addition to lowering people's mobility since it's harder to move to an area with much higher cost of living, and also provides just about no actual benefit over a flat increase. not surprised that "pragmatic" moderates are the ones proposing helping people less and introducing complexity into a very simple proposal and making it harder to sell.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
this kind of thinking affected arizona last election when i was living there with marijuana legalization. instead of simply making it legal the proposal created a "board" staffed by businesses that had the ability to decide whether or not a new business was allowed to open a location, and also you weren't allowed to grow anything yourself or if you weren't one of these businesses. rather than legalizing the drug they were trying to implement a cartel. the measure failed. this is why you don't listen to pragmatic moderates.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The EITC is the largest federal anti-poverty program by a large margin. It transferred about 70 billion dollars to about 30 million households last year. It's not perfect, and it could be improved. There's no reason why it can't be distributed more frequently or expanded to provide more relief to workers without dependents. But it's a little strange that I'm defending it from attacks from the left that it expands the deficit and is vulnerable to republicans loving with the budget. These arguments seem equally relevant to, say, single payer healthcare. I think part of the potential issue with something like EITC vs. single-payer is that benefits from EITC can be nickel-and-dimed so to speak by Republican congresses (that is, benefits can be gradually cut in a way that may be more politically palatable in the short-term). By for something like single-payer (assuming a system where citizens can just walk into a clinic, present some ID, and not face a charge) it's not really possible to make a change that affects citizens without it being very noticeable. As a side question regarding single-payer, do all implementations of single-payer also eliminate things like co-pays or deductibles? Because I feel like one of the biggest problems with our current system is that, even if you have really good insurance, every individual act of going to the clinic/hospital still represents a significant charge, even if it's heavily reduced from what someone uninsured would pay. $50+ dollars is not trivial for a poor person, and that's not even getting into deductibles. I would rather have a higher sum automatically deducted in the form of taxes (especially since that can be taxed progressively) than face a variable payment depending upon frequency of use. Ardennes posted:Personally, I think the minimum wage should be raised on a regional level continuously until it provides at least some time of livable wage for that region, that may be $13 dollars in some regions or $18 dollars in others. While this makes sense in theory, I think that in practice we'll never actually see minimum wages become nearly as high as they could theoretically be without having negative economic repercussions (on the poor/middle class at least). So I think it's probably fine to just set them using high cost of living areas as a basis and let people in cheaper areas "pocket the difference" so to speak. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The EITC is the largest federal anti-poverty program by a large margin. It transferred about 70 billion dollars to about 30 million households last year. It's not perfect, and it could be improved. There's no reason why it can't be distributed more frequently or expanded to provide more relief to workers without dependents. But it's a little strange that I'm defending it from attacks from the left that it expands the deficit and is vulnerable to republicans loving with the budget. These arguments seem equally relevant to, say, single payer healthcare. Yes, we talk about two different things in two different ways, good job there grasping concepts. Single payer healthcare isn't meant to be a transfer of wealth, it's a way to provide healthcare for your people. It ends up being an indirect transfer of wealth, but we shouldn't be looking at it's budgetary effects the same way that we do something like the EITC.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Stexils posted:varying the minwage by region leaves a lot of room for companies and local governments to gently caress people over and dissuading that would require a lot more overhead in addition to lowering people's mobility since it's harder to move to an area with much higher cost of living, and also provides just about no actual benefit over a flat increase. not surprised that "pragmatic" moderates are the ones proposing helping people less and introducing complexity into a very simple proposal and making it harder to sell. I'm pretty sure Ardennes isn't a pragmatic moderate but w/e. It would not necessarily be very hard to implement a flexible minimum wage-- you can just set it at a percentage of the regional median wage. Suggesting the complexity of a proposal is an inherent weakness of the policy is a wholly republican talking point in any case. Ytlaya posted:I think part of the potential issue with something like EITC vs. single-payer is that benefits from EITC can be nickel-and-dimed so to speak by Republican congresses (that is, benefits can be gradually cut in a way that may be more politically palatable in the short-term). By for something like single-payer (assuming a system where citizens can just walk into a clinic, present some ID, and not face a charge) it's not really possible to make a change that affects citizens without it being very noticeable. I really can't see this. There are many ways that republicans could nickel and dime health services that wouldn't be immediately obvious to the vast majority of people--think reducing the funding for chemotherapy which would increase wait times. Reductions in the EITC would be immediately obvious to the people who get the EITC. I don't see any important distinction. quote:While this makes sense in theory, I think that in practice we'll never actually see minimum wages become nearly as high as they could theoretically be without having negative economic repercussions (on the poor/middle class at least). So I think it's probably fine to just set them using high cost of living areas as a basis and let people in cheaper areas "pocket the difference" so to speak. WampaLord posted:Yes, we talk about two different things in two different ways, good job there grasping concepts. This is dumb, but rather than explain why, let's just change single payer to welfare. Are the impacts on deficits or the possibility of republicans loving with the budget a reason not to expand welfare? No. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 22:41 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While this makes sense in theory, I think that in practice we'll never actually see minimum wages become nearly as high as they could theoretically be without having negative economic repercussions (on the poor/middle class at least). So I think it's probably fine to just set them using high cost of living areas as a basis and let people in cheaper areas "pocket the difference" so to speak. My worry is that you may start having more "under the table" work in those areas, especially in very poor areas, due to the differences in wages which is only going to make those workers more vulnerable. I think it is going to be very hard to avoid some type of dysfunction in the labor market when you start to approach median wages. I would rather see some regionalization than having the federal minimum wage held back to the lowest common denominator. The issue with the general budget is that it seems to be the first thing targeted, while "entitled" social programs have generally fared far better. I much rather see a single-payer health care plan funded through banded payroll taxes with its own budget then get lumped in with the general budget. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:48 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Suggesting the complexity of a proposal is an inherent weakness of the policy is a wholly republican talking point in any case. No it isn't
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:My worry is that you may start having more "under the table" work in those areas, especially in very poor areas, due to the differences in wages which is only going to make those workers more vulnerable. I would rather see some regionalization than having the federal minimum wage held back to the lowest common denominator. under the table work is illegal work. we need to beef up the DoL and tackle wage theft, as it's a way larger share of theft than shoplifting employers don't pay people under the table because they don't have enough money to pay them legally. they do it because it saves them a lot of money
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
The idea that without a layer of superfluous bureaucracy to Centrist dems have spent so long establishing sinecures for corporate lobbyists in exchange for donations that they genuinely can't comprehend the idea of legislation that doesn't accommodate them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:under the table work is illegal work. we need to beef up the DoL and tackle wage theft, as it's a way larger share of theft than shoplifting The problem is if you set wages too high, it incentives under the table work since employers may refuse to hire "officially." It may not make a real difference in some areas, but it very well may in low/very low wage areas. I guess it comes down to the issue: can you set wages too high? What will the aftereffects of this look like?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No it isn't I guess there's a reason to prefer the simpler of two policies if the impacts are the same. But "the government can't possibly implement this policy well, there's too many pages in the bill!" Is straight out of the freedom caucus.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't know why new democrats are so in love with tax credits I think there was a time maybe twenty years ago or more where this was actually true, but I'm not so sure it is anymore. Republicans these days - and I'm talking about the voters here - seem to think that raising taxes on the poor is loving awesome. And the poor don't trust Democrats anymore and don't give a poo poo what they say.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is dumb, but rather than explain why, let's just change single payer to welfare. Are the impacts on deficits or the possibility of republicans loving with the budget a reason not to expand welfare? No. But impact on the deficit is a perfectly valid reason to complain about the EITC versus a minimum wage hike, so stop dismissing all arguments you don't like as "Republican talking points."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I guess there's a reason to prefer the simpler of two policies if the impacts are the same. But "the government can't possibly implement this policy well, there's too many pages in the bill!" Is straight out of the freedom caucus. yes, but "a complex plan will lead its beneficiaries not realizing the source of the benefit thereby weakening its political staying power, and will require too much effort for its intended beneficiaries to obtain thereby weakening its salutatory effect" isn't
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
like after the medicaid expansion got struck down on a bullshit neo-confederate justification and the exchanges a) broke upon implementation and b) are still difficult to navigate and really people have no loving idea how to balance the relative cost/benefits because the idea of rationally anticipating your needed healthcare costs is loving ludicrous, I don't know how you can say "well, attacking a plan's complexity is inherently a right wing argument"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:But impact on the deficit is a perfectly valid reason to complain about the EITC versus a minimum wage hike, so stop dismissing all arguments you don't like as "Republican talking points." Sure, it's also a reason to prefer the ACA to Medicare for all, or the AHCA to both. "But the deficit!" And "it's too complicated!" Are archetypal Republican arguments. Maybe you've been making GBS threads on democrats so long you've forgotten what those look like?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:like after the medicaid expansion got struck down on a bullshit neo-confederate justification and the exchanges a) broke upon implementation and b) are still difficult to navigate and really people have no loving idea how to balance the relative cost/benefits because the idea of rationally anticipating your needed healthcare costs is loving ludicrous, I don't know how you can say "well, attacking a plan's complexity is inherently a right wing argument" Because attacking the efficacy of the government to solve problems by asserting government fails whenever it attempts anything more complex than a minimalist state has been at the heart of Republican messaging since Reagan. Maybe we're referencing different things here. If by complexity you mean too many hoops for people to jump through to get services, then that's not an inherently right wing argument against a policy. But if by complexity you mean the government isn't competent enough to implement the policy well, that's a core right wing argument. Are you comfortable with labeling deficit hawks as inherently republican? Like the size of the deficit actually matters, and if it grows too big it could cause serious problems, and eventually the deficit gets paid by taxes, so is attacking a plan's cost inherently right wing? The left's core message to me is "Government is capable of solving difficult problems and benefiting the public by legislating and spending taxes on needed services" and the right's critique is "government sucks at solving anything but the simplest problems and taxes are bad".
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
I think the issue is mostly with complexity that citizens using a particular government program are exposed to. Like, a particular policy might be better in a perfect world where all citizens used it correctly and rationally, but there's an inherent cost (in terms of programs being more difficult to access or fully utilize) to extra complexity for users of the government program in question. So it's possible that a program that might be more effective on paper would, in fact, be less effective in practice.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
I love love love when Dems pull out "oh yeah, well the Republicans said that is 4 also!" when you point out that 2+2 =4 as though their dumb loving eternal partisan war trumps all actual logic
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Republicans said selling arms to Saudi Arabia was bad during the election therefore Hillary selling arms to Saudi Arabia must have been good, actually
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
So Y'all have turned on a dime and now think handwringing about the deficit and attacks on the efficacy of government to implement complex policy are totally valid arguments agains expanding the welfare state? Truly the beating heart of leftism ITT.Ytlaya posted:I think the issue is mostly with complexity that citizens using a particular government program are exposed to. Like, a particular policy might be better in a perfect world where all citizens used it correctly and rationally, but there's an inherent cost (in terms of programs being more difficult to access or fully utilize) to extra complexity for users of the government program in question. So it's possible that a program that might be more effective on paper would, in fact, be less effective in practice. I don't disagree with opposition to this type of complexity. But this has nothing to do with the government setting different minimum wages in different regions. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So Y'all have turned on a dime and now think handwringing about the deficit and attacks on the efficacy of government to implement complex policy are totally valid arguments agains expanding the welfare state? Truly the beating heart of leftism ITT. And so we return, once again, to the idea that criticizing Democratic policies is inherently anti-leftist.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Criticizing an expansion of anti poverty policies with the arguments of the right is inherently anti-leftist, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Criticizing an expansion of anti poverty policies with the arguments of the right is inherently anti-leftist, yes. Pssst... you are the one who has been arguing anti-poverty policies
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Democrat Christine Pellegrino has defeated Republican Thomas Gargiulo in the District 9 State Assembly special election, an upset in a district that Donald Trump won by 23 points in the 2016 presidential race.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're pitching a minimum wage hike as an anti-poverty/redistributionist policy, then yes, it matters who will benefit and who will pay for it. If the wage increases come from business profits, and the recipients are all poor, it works as redistribution. If the wages are paid for with price increases, and the beneficiaries are both rich and poor, the effect can be ambiguous, depending on the proportions. Economists are pretty confident that the overall effect is redistributionist at the levels they've studied, but it's not particularly efficient, and poor people out of the labor force are unambiguously worse-off. Price increases only matters on goods and services. Fixed costs are almost totally unaffected, rent, utilities, gas, and so this still a large improvement. Second, credits can only go as far as the tax rate extends, which is low at min wage levels.A min wage increase DOUBLES income and works well with people working part time/ low hours. Everyone working at min wage levels benefits. People outside the labor force needs welfare regardless, neither EITC nor a min wage increase addresses this so the point is moot. This whole discussion is ridiculous, if you had to choose, would you rather have a 15$ min wage increase then nothing? Because that is much more politically viable. Why is support of sweatshops, and a vehemently opposing a minimum wage increase the mountain you have chosen to die on?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
People are rightfully distrustful of things they do not understand, and that goes double for policies that politicians present, because more often that not, that complexity exists only to screw them over. Talking about 'simple' policy isn't a right-wing argument because 'simple' =/= no government involvement. Eg- The public option is 'simple' but not right-wing. Also JC you're still a massive moron without an understanding of economics, who's pretending they're a loving professor. Even if minimum wage leads to price increases, that doesn't mean that people living on that wage will experience a decrease in living standards - in fact, it must increase. Why? Because total costs = total wages + dividends, and not everyone is on minimum wage. Only human beings actually earn money. Each product has some proportion of wage labor built into it, which has the different wage levels contributing to the cost, ie: 30% minimum wage, 40% median wage, 30% high wage. Even if the minimum wage increases, that only affects the proportion of the labor in a product that pays minimum wage. That price increase will be both proportional to the wage increase, but also to the proportion of labor that pays minium wage, which since it is less than 100%, must mean that the product of the two, which is the proportional increase in the cost of production, must be less than the proportional increase in the minimum wage. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because attacking the efficacy of the government to solve problems by asserting government fails whenever it attempts anything more complex than a minimalist state has been at the heart of Republican messaging since Reagan. Maybe we're referencing different things here. If by complexity you mean too many hoops for people to jump through to get services, then that's not an inherently right wing argument against a policy. But if by complexity you mean the government isn't competent enough to implement the policy well, that's a core right wing argument. policy shouldn't be more complicated than it needs to be especially since in this case that complexity both hurts the goals of the policy (making things better for everyone on minwage) and makes it harder to sell to the public since you have to explain both your policy and why you can't just do the simple, obvious thing that people actually want. needless complexity is bad and counterproductive. that's not a right wing position that's basic political strategy. this isn't a hard or complicated problem that needs to be fine tuned to each region, the minimum wage has been raised in the past all the time without issue, the only handwringing happening itt is invented problems that have never actually happened as an excuse to avoid implementing the simplest popular possible policy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:People are rightfully distrustful of things they do not understand, and that goes double for policies that politicians present, because more often that not, that complexity exists only to screw them over. Talking about 'simple' policy isn't a right-wing argument because 'simple' =/= no government involvement. Eg- The public option is 'simple' but not right-wing. Idk man I went down to the Starbucks near my gated suburb and the barista was my rich neighbor's kid, and come to think of it all the low wage workers I know are the children of my wealthy friends so higher minimum wage is just a handout for rich kids QED
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Stexils posted:policy shouldn't be more complicated than it needs to be especially since in this case that complexity both hurts the goals of the policy (making things better for everyone on minwage) and makes it harder to sell to the public since you have to explain both your policy and why you can't just do the simple, obvious thing that people actually want. needless complexity is bad and counterproductive. that's not a right wing position that's basic political strategy. You see, advocating for higher minimum wage is actually far-right extremism because it's not complicated enough. Advocating it based on how simple it is? Even worse you monster. - a poster that you still don't have on ignore for some reason Name Change fucked around with this message at 20:03 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 03:57
|
|
