"Everything Republicans believe is wrong" (IP porn)

if you are on minimum wage you can qualify for medicaid. on top of paying zero taxes on the $7.25. i'm not seeing how you are materially screwed compared to the guy making $20 an hour if we are ignoring people's actual wage.

 

So rather than the employer paying that money to the government and insurance companies on the employee's behalf you would rather the employer pay that money straight to the employee. I don't know of any employers who would have a problem with that.

It is the politicians, mostly Democrats, who are against that. Wonder why?

 

All that has to be taken into to the total cost of labor though. That's why employees really take the hit on payroll tax. The employer adds that into the total cost of labor in their hiring.

Same with business taxes. It's all just a front for the government to get more share of the pie while hiding the true cost

 

I think we're talking past each other.

This whole discussion started with, basically, how poor is somebody on minimum wage? That's what I'm speaking to. Somebody asked what other benefits are provided in addition to the 7.50 an hour....and for purposes of paying your rent and your car note for this month, the answer is none.

 

Can you also qualify for Medicaid if you're not working at all?

 

you sure can and collect welfare. why do you think so few adults work for minimum wage?

 

Because the employer is forced to collect and pay money that the employee will receive at a future date (deferred compensation per se). Do you want the employee to receive the money now or at a future date?

I am sure the employer would have no problem giving it to the employee now. I would prefer receiving it now. Democrats are against it.

 

Well then it doesn't sound like medicaid is a benefit to be tacked onto the 7.50/hr.

 

i don't think anyone is arguing you can support a family on minimum wage. the question is what percentage of people on minimum wage are in family where they are the sole providor and given the fact that only 1/4 of people on minimum wage are in poverty we can assume not many.

 

never meant to imply it was

 

We're still talking past each other. I'm not arguing that social security is sound policy. In fact, I don't think it is at all. Your ranting at the wrong fella. I'm just saying that Darryl at the Mickey D's drive thru is pretty poor. He's getting his paycheck, and I'm sure he wishes he were getting a transit subsidy to help pay bus fare, but he's not getting a transit subsidy. And if he were getting a transit subsidy, I wouldn't have said he was only getting the 7.50 an hour, as the transit subsidy would clearly be an additional benefit. This is all I'm saying. The scope of my comment is no broader than that.

 

That's potentially true. What's warranted apart from the pay? Almost all min wage jobs are transient with an enormous pool of potential replacements. There simply isn't any reason to pay more for the startup employee. They prove worthwhile, you pay them more to keep them.

This notion that people are owed more or that somehow someone should pay more is some of the worst philosophy in the world. T

 

This is akin to the argument that coach salaries include buyouts.

 

I follow you, fwiw

 

I see what you're saying as well.

 

When I was making 8 bucks an hour during undergrad, this was the same rate I was "offered" through my employer.

 

If there was a multinational contractor chain, it would be a problem for him. They could afford to undercut anyone smaller until they starved them out or absorbed them, then raise rates. Luckily, I would imagine contractor work is not something that really fit well past a regional level of growth.

 

Also, for those including social security and medicare as a paid benefiit: why then do you include it as a government subsidy too when they receive it? Can't have it both ways.

 

and you've developed this supposed knowledge of how mutlinational corporations work how exactly?

 

why the hell not? it's a tax like anything else.