Poor families pay no income taxes.150% for anyone. The part about paying no tax is false as you already know. Deductions and tax credits are the way to assist families. Reduced taxes, and ceiling cut-offs on selected incomes is the way to help wealthy people.
Poor families need help, wealthy people, not so much.
You could set up a negative income tax as a way to get more money to poor families. I believe it was Milton Friedman who suggest that.
Again, at some point, you need enough people paying in order to cover expenditures.
If you get rid of the other welfare programs such as food stamps, medicare, social security, public housing etc, then you will probably have plenty of money for a negative income tax.
I will only quote one line from Wikipedia regarding Blackmun: “Blackmun, a lifelong Republican, was expected to adhere to a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.”
Income taxes are only one of many taxes that people have to pay. There are sales taxes, city taxes, taxes on gasoline, and various hidden taxes we pay.
We already have it. We have “refundable” tax credits, which pay out people more than they paid in taxes.
You’re not making sense here.
The federal poverty level varies based upon the number of people in a household. *150% I think should be based on an individual or single member household. Further relief should come from other sources. *
http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/619/9846035525.png red x
So you are asserting that the minimum wage should be based upon 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. Again, I ask, 150% of the Federal Poverty Level for whom? (in other words, for which family size?) see above
In an earlier post, you said:
I answered your question: if a family owes no tax, there can be no deductions.
People who are married filing jointly are not required to even file income tax forms if they make <$20,000, as there is no way that they owe any income tax. From the 2013 Form 1040 instructions:
easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/621/3138168915.png red x
If you’re thinking about FICA taxes, well, there is no such thing as FICA deductions. And, with the exception of self-employed people (such as those working on 1099s), FICA is an automatic deduction from their pay. Of course, now, minimum wage doesn’t even apply to people who are self-employed and on 1099 as, technically, they are earning revenue rather than drawing wages. I think we are talking about wages when we say minimum wage.
But I note that NOW you bring up tax credits (you didn’t mention tax credits before). Obviously a refundable tax credit (I will assume you are talking about refundable tax credits here) is different than a deduction. I think it would take tax credits from a variety of sources. You could think about fuel taxes for gasoline. Fuel destined for farm use generally has no tax. Poor people could further benefit from tax breaks modeled after this system. But, there could certainly be other sources. Remember the goal is to make life a little easier for folks who are hard pressed.
Having said the above, let me ask you again. You say that minimum wage should be based upon 150% of the FPL. 150% of FPL for which family size? Or should minimum wage be variable based upon the size of the family the employee supports? I believe in equal pay for equel work. But, a system that rewarded people for not aborting their children? I’d have to take a look at that.
FYI, The operative word here is “world”. Communism is the most obvious example and extreme suppression of economic rights. There are many Catholic teachings, as noted elsewhere, that serve as a counter to excessive socialist initiatives, or even leveling economic policies like graduated income tax, welfare and (as noted here) a minimum wage. None of the balances changes one bit the moral principle that people should be paid a living wage. They are additional economic consideration, not contradictory principles. Most of our bishops are not as ignorant as they have been made out to be. They simply take in all of Church teaching and not the part that is easy or political.
There is a difference between paying a family wage and receiving a family wage, and while the church suggests that families should receive such a wage they have never said that an employer must pay one. Big difference.* There can be several different ways to make a family wage a concrete reality. Various forms of important social provisions help to bring it about, for example, family subsidies and other contributions for dependent family members… *(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #250)
Yes, there are several ways to achieve the same end. However, I think the Miami AB is right on the need to raise the minimum wage.
He may well be right, but he provided no economic analysis to support his position and even admitted that he essentially doesn’t have one. My objection to his comments is that they come with an implied moral imperative, and that doesn’t exist either. This is a purely economic argument: does the good that comes from raising the minimum wage outweigh the harm that also comes with it?
Clearly raising the minimum wage isn’t something on par with something like abortion, where we have a duty to oppose it in all circumstances. But we do have an obligation to help the poor. So the morality of one’s support for raising the minimum wage or not ultimately comes down to whether or not one thinks it’s the best way to help the poor receive a living wage. This involves a moral choice because it concerns justice involved with giving everyone the wages they deserve, but there can be legitimate disagreements as to what is the best way in achieving this end.
Maybe like me, he has seen the failure of economics as a science. It has proven to be less accurate than an magic eight ball. The principles can be understood, but their complexity has made all practical applications hit and miss, as our economic rollercoaster has shown.
Wise words.
The choice of supporting an increase to the minimum wage or opposing an increase is not in itself a moral choice. Our reasons for choosing one or the other makes our action moral or immoral. If I oppose raising the minimum wage because I think it will do more harm than good, that is a moral choice. If I oppose it because I think it will harm me personally and I don’t care about the good it does, that is an immoral decision.
There are always economics ups and downs, times of recession and times of prosperity. I wouldn’t say that all practical applications are hit and miss - could you give an example of that? One of the problems is the unforeseen consequences of government meddling in the free market - such as what happened from the cash for clunkers programs, e.g.
