Renovate your home free of tax on labor – Omaha World Herald
State government is knocking a few percentage points off the cost of home remodeling projects in Nebraska.
A much-criticized sales tax on home remodeling labor expires today, less than three years after it was put into place.
As a homeowner, repealing this tax is welcome news (and it couldn’t have come soon enough).
Remodeling contractors say eliminating the tax will encourage homeowners to fix up their houses and eliminate bookkeeping headaches for them.
Gov. Dave Heineman said Friday that the home repair tax was “an unnecessary and unfair tax.”
“This is just the beginning of what I intend to do to improve our tax climate in Nebraska,” he said.
Don’t be fooled by Governor Heineman’s rhetoric, he had little to do with this tax repeal. The person that single-handedly (and I do mean single-handedly) got this tax repealed is State Senator Gwen Howard (who by the way is a Democrat).
Two years ago, Senator Howard campaigned on this issue, and she came through for her district and all homeowners in the State of Nebraska. While other senators (and dare I say the governor) were thinking up ways to spend the revenue created by this ridiculous tax, Senator Howard was drumming up support to repeal the tax passed by the Republican dominated unicameral several years ago.
Governor Heineman is a Johnny-come-lately on this issue, but he’s the first to jump up and take credit. Isn’t that a surprise?
As some of you know, I’m in the process of remodeling my basement. A couple weeks ago, I hired a contractor to put up drywall. A line item on my bill read “7% Tax - $128.13 (Contractor Labor). If I had waited a few weeks, that charge wouldn’t have appeared on my bill thanks to Senator Howard.
Governor Heineman and Republicans in this state love to brag about lowering taxes, but they’re doing absolutely nothing to put money back in the pockets of not only the average Nebraskan but any Nebraskan. Governor Heineman’s rhetoric about tax relief is all hat, no cattle. Here’s why…
Back in December, Heineman released his tax cut strategy. An article about that plan appeared in the Lincoln Journal-Star accompanied by some interesting numbers.
Heineman’s tax cut plan targets income, sales, property – Lincoln Journal-Star
The income-tax portion of Heineman’s strategy would roll back tax rates to 1997 levels, resulting in about a 3 percent reduction. That would save a family of four earning $55,000 a total of about $120 over three years.
Hypothetically, let’s say I fit the criteria above. With Heineman’s tax cut, I would save $40 per year.
Granted, his tax strategy included repealing the home repair tax, but as I said before, that wasn’t his idea. To be honest, I don’t think he really supported the concept until Senator Howard created enough support on her own that he was forced to support it.
Ok, back to the example. Heineman saves me $120 over 3 years and in one day, I save $128.13 because of State Senator Gwen Howard. So, who’s really looking out for tax payers?
Additionally, this tax is not only a financial burden on homeowners, but it creates “bookkeeping headaches” for businesses. Republicans love to brag about lowering taxes, and they also love to talk about being friendly to businesses. Well, it took a Democrat in this state to not only lower taxes (and put significant amounts of money back in the pockets of Nebraskans) but also make it easier for businesses to operate.
Dare I say a common sense approach to governing?
Income taxes are not a huge problem for the majority of Americans. Sure, they are a nuisance, but most people understand that they are necessary. Republicans campaign on a promise of cutting your taxes - and they generally do cut taxes. But those tax cuts almost always disproportionately favor the wealthy. Any benefit the average taxpayer sees is miniscule - enough to fill a tank or two of gas. Meanwhile, our tax dollars go to wasteful pork projects, a terrible war, and yet another payraise for the United States Congress. And many Americans still have to survive on $5.15 an hour. Where’s their payraise? Students like us are seeing our financial aid cut every year while tuition rises more and more. $40 a year isn’t going to help us.
Sales taxes place a significant burden on those who have less money. A tax cut like this helps working families, small businesses, and homeowners. Democrats aren’t against cutting taxes. We just want the tax cuts to help the greatest number of people.
Kudos to Gwen, I know she was working hard on this for 2 years, and I’m glad to see her get the law changes like she promised she would (not that I doubted she would).
Just as importantly, as a guy who needed a new roof 2 years ago, and lives in a 110 yr old house that needs updates frequently, this helps me out a lot too. But, in good democratic fashion, it doesn’t help me out because I’m rich, or a campaign contributor, or anything like that. It helps me out because I, like a large large portion of nebraskan’s, fall into this catigory that needed relief. You’re exactly right Dave, Democrats are about common sense relief for all, GOPers seem to be all about rediculous large cuts for a select select few (like the national sales tax ricketts keeps pushing)
Chief, you couldn’t be more correct. You make so many real and relevant points. Congrautlations for breaking this down for us. Also, it’s good to see a Senator follow through on thier campaign promise. Sen. Howard is actually getting things done. Big thanks to her.
Hello I must say this is a very nice blog you have here and the comments are very interesting as well. Being an internet afficionado I am constantly seeking out new sources of information like this one. While I am currently doing some research, I would also like to intimate the readers of this blog about the ongoing drive to sell out the internet to the big communications companies. I am part of a pressure group that would appreciate it if readers would help spread the word about this so we can maintain the intergrity of the internet as a free resource for the world. Thanks for helping to spread the word and being a resource for my work. Cheers and keep up the good work.
Gwen Howard is really good a getting publicity, but it is flat-out wrong to make any indication that she “single-handedly” got this legislation passed. The underlying bill (LB 959) was introduced and prioritized by Senator Ray Janssen, a Democrat from Nickerson, NE. A similar bill was introduced in 2004, while Gwen Howard was campaigning, to repeal the reconstruction tax (LB 892 by Senator Stuthman). Maybe Gwen was the ‘Johnny-come-lately on this issue, but she’s the first to jump up and take credit’.
There were many other Senators involved in the process. Senator John Synowiecki and Senator Pat Bourne (both good ole Democrats from Omaha) led the floor debate with passion and Senator Landis (Democratic Chairman of the Revenue Committee) worked to get the LB 959 amended into LB 968 (a bill introduced by Republican Pam Redfield). The bottom-line is that this legislation would have been dead, as it was in 2004, if it wasn’t for a large state surplus and the work of many Democrats in the Legislature - not just Gwen ‘Johnny-come-lately’ Howard.
J sure seems upset about Gwen getting the publicity she earned. Wonder what J has ever done for the good of the cause.
Gwen also wasn’t in a committee to introduce this bill, or “prioritize it” (make no mistake, she prioritized its passage, she just wasn’t able to use a special Unicameral Process whereby a senator makes a bill their “priority bill”).
Yes there were a lot of senators involved in the process… it’s a legislature. But Gwen definatley was the one out there making the phone calls to keep the process going, keeping media attention on the issue, and of course, she spent much of 2004 talking about this bill while campaigning, which in and of itself created media attention.
If J wants to point out that there were other senators involved (and indeed, a lot of them Dems) then I’m all for it. But Gwen certainly does deserve the lions share of the credit on this one, and I’m glad she’s getting some of it. Besides which, the personal attacks against her J, seems just a bit mean-spirited, and make me wonder if you have something else against her totally unrelated to this bill.
Just to cariy for J–
Senator Howard would was committed to the repeal of the home repair sales tax throughout her campaign. The issue is very important to the residents in her districts, as most of the homes are older and many of her constituents are on fixed or limited budgets.
Senator Howard introuced a measure to eliminate the home repair tax during the 2005 session, LB615. She also co-signed Sen. Stuthmans bill, LB417, also introduced in 2005. The langage from her bill, LB967, the repeal of residential property repair tax was incorporated in LB968. There has been mention of LB959, introduced by Sen. Janssen. Janssen’s bill was to remove tax from both residential and commercial repairs; the Revenue committee chose to focus on residential tax repeal only.
Senator Howard would be the first to tell you that she was successful in achieving the repeal thanks to the support of her neighborhood associations, the Nebraska Homebuilders Association, and other grassroots supporters. Over 8,000 signatures were cllected in support of repeal of this taxation and presented at the LB967 hearing. The repeal of this tax is a true example of grassroots success; it proves that government can work and that Senator Howard keeps her campaign promises.
I would like to make two points. First, Senator Howard did her part in getting this bill passed, but so did others. I just take offense to the “single-handedly” language. The fact of the matter is that this was the first time the governor supported the legislation (after three previous attempts to repeal it) and the first time the state had real surplus, allowing everyone to start the debate on tax cuts.
Secondly, I heard from two Senators who were upset that she tried to portray it as a single-handed effort to the media. Apparently, there were no invitations, to the press event, extended to the other Democratic Senators that helped move this legislation. It could have been a real win-win for the party, not just one Senator. Senator Howard should be careful not to offend her Democratic colleagues.
J-
Be careful throwing stones. Just because you work for a Democrat State Senator does not give you the right to hide who you are and post nasty things about another Democrat Senator.
Fact is that in the two years that Gwen Howard has been in the Legislature she has done a damn good job. Fact is that her priority is representing her constituents and they know that.
As far as the press is concerned, fact of why the press likes her is not because she goes chasing after them, it is because she is a humble and well meaning person who is kind to everyone. The press are people too.
Fact is, the press like her and come to her without her placing out press releases. She does send out press releases sometimes, but the majority of the time they come to her. And to be frank, Gwen Howard is doing her job. She is giving people a reason to believe in their elected representation. She is dedicating her life to being a good Senator. This is her full time job not just the first few months of the year. I am not saying that your Senator does not take the job seriously, I am simply stating that she has made the choice to dedicate all of her time. So anything that she recieves, she has worked darn hard for.
Lastly, Senators from both sides of the aisle were in attendance at her event that she had, which was for all the neighborhood associations that worked so hard to gather the signatures and make the phone calls. It was Gwen Howard and her team circulating the petitions and working to get the word out. Don’t knock her for figuring out how to get the people together and to get to job done. She did spear head the repeal this year, and this is the year that it got done.
Be careful where you are posting your messages from. Government computers are not the wisest choice. Big brother is always watching.
haha
us democrats are a funny bunch.
take a swing by “the free republic” or “townhall.com” and read through republican and ultra-conservative comments and arguments.
they’re nutso! Don’t get me wrong, there are tons and tons of well meaning and decent republicans, they just don’t seem to post to republican blogs and such. ‘Freeper posts seem to always be riddled with spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors, along with too much punctuation, all-caps, and no citation of sources.
Over here we have Dems arguing over an important point, certainly, but arguing in a way that shows a sophisticated attention and understanding of the legislative process. In addition the arguments are made in both moral and pragmatic frameworks, in long, well constructed sentences and paragraphs.
So good job guys and gals, keep it up.
As for this blog post,
I’m sticking with my opinion that Gwen’s media attention was well deserved.
Don’t get me wrong, Senator Howard does a fine job in the Legislature and for her district - all the Democrats in the Legislature do. I hope that this blog will spend time at the beginning of next year discussing important issues before the Legislature.
Dave Sund said:
Income taxes are not a huge problem for the majority of Americans.
Really, Dave? As a student, I’m sure it doesn’t hurt you too much.
Dave said:
Sure, they are a nuisance, but most people understand that they are necessary.
No they don’t, Dave Do you think all monies spent by the government are necessary??
Dave said:
Republicans campaign on a promise of cutting your taxes - and they generally do cut taxes. But those tax cuts almost always disproportionately favor the wealthy.
Perhaps, Dave, that’s because the top 20% of wage earners pay 90% of all income taxes. Most of the bottom 20% don’t pay any at all. Based on that, the 2 tanks of gas would be yet another giveaway. You need to be more well read, Dave, and not recite the leftist handbood word for word.
Dave said:
Meanwhile, our tax dollars go to wasteful pork projects, a terrible war, and yet another payraise for the United States Congress.
I would agree with you on the first and third things there. And for different reasons, the second thing. All wars are terrible, but my two sons both served there, Dave, and they both would go back. You’re watching too much of the moe, larry, and curly networks, CNN (Al-Jazeera, USA) and reading too much of the New York/Al-Queda Times, USA/Al Jazeera Today.
Dave said
And many Americans still have to survive on $5.15 an hour. Where’s their payraise?
No Dave, virtually no Americans survive on $5.15 an hour. They have any number of handouts accessible to them, (paid for by the “wealthy”) food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc. etc etc. If you would read something other than the liberal handbook when you blurb out these slogans you would realize that over 70% of all minimum are teenagers working part-time jobs. There are virtually no breadwinners making minimum wage. The minimum wage was created to introduce upstart citizens into employment at an affordable rate for employers. Where’s their raise? When they learn those skills they get to move on to better employment either within the company they are working for or outside it.
Dave Sund said:
“And many Americans still have to survive on $5.15 an hour. Where’s their pay raise?”
Ooooh, Dave I’m definitely going to have to call you on this one too. You obviously imply here that the minimum wage is good for the poor, so why not raise it to $20 an hour? Hell, if the MW really does lift people out of poverty (as most people, including Republicans, seem to think) why not raise it to $100 an hour? Hmmm? This is yet another economic fallacy that derives from a variant of the false dichotomy fallacy, whereby people think that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and that one person/group (business that employ low-skilled workers in this case) can only profit at the expense of others.
There are two main reasons (at least) why the MW is a bad policy -
1. It hurts the very people it intends to help. This is basic supply and demand. When the market price for unskilled labor is held above equilibrium (the point where the number of workers willing to work for a given price equals the number of employers willing to employ said workers at that price) there will be more workers willing to work due to the higher price. However, employers will be willing to hire fewer workers than at the market rate because employers will no longer offer jobs that were only marginally profitable before the MW. The number of workers unemployed by the MW of course depends on the difference between the equilibrium price and the gov’t mandated price floor, but also on the elasticity of demand for low-skilled labor.
2. It reduces total production, making society in general poorer. Because labor is now artificially more expensive, employers will consume less of it. Not only is this unemployment bad for its own sake, but when fewer workers are working there will obviously be fewer total goods produced, impeding growth.
These effects are not very pronounced in the US (indeed, some studies have failed to find any effect of the MW on the US labor market), as the market labor price for most jobs is now above the MW. But were it to be raised to, say $15/hour, the effects would be devastating indeed. Just look at France, which has a MW of around $11/hour US - the unemployment/underemployment rate among young workers (those most directly affected) is over 50%.
I agree with Tyler. Even though I am a liberal, I still have a brain when it comes to economics. Minimum wage is not something that constantly needs to be raised, even with inflation. It hurts businesses and the impoverished more than it helps.
But there is a line, Mike. With inflation, the minimum wage has gone down at least a dollar in the last decade. With gas prices and basic needs becoming ever more expensive, I don’t think a raise in the minimum wage to $7.25 is anything that would hurt the economy. The raise in the minimum wage in the mid-90s certainly didn’t cause a high unemployment rate or businesses to go under. Given industry’s 200-year history of routinely screwing employees over unless government intervenes, I think a minimum wage is certainly in all of our best interests. As liberals, as Democrats, a long-overdue cost-of-living increase in the minimum wage should be a higher priority than any short-term business liability.
What I was originally speaking to in the first question Tyler quoted, though, was the out-and-out hypocrisy of Congress voting themselves a payraise, yet again, then turning around and saying that the lowest-paid workers don’t deserve it. To think: this Congress!
“But there is a line, Mike. With inflation, the minimum wage has gone down at least a dollar in the last decade. With gas prices and basic needs becoming ever more expensive, I don’t think a raise in the minimum wage to $7.25 is anything that would hurt the economy. The raise in the minimum wage in the mid-90s certainly didn’t cause a high unemployment rate or businesses to go under.”
The economy in the 90’s is an interesting but complex subject. The economy was considered “good” by most, but much of the boom was artificial, caused by a steady expansion of the money supply by the fed. From 1991 to 1999 M3 more than doubled. Of course this boom was unsustainable, and before the recession could run its course, Bush and Greenspan panicked after 9/11 and dumped even more currency into the economy. IMO, this is the cause of the currently collapsing housing bubble, sub-zero savings rate, and the general “squeeze” the middle class is now feeling. But I think I’m getting off subject here…
“Given industry’s 200-year history of routinely screwing employees over unless government intervenes,”
Oh really Dave, the “exploited workers” thing is getting a bit tired, isn’t it? Employers don’t treat their workers better now than in the past because of government regulation, they treat their workers better because they have to; as productivity increases, workers can command higher wages, more benefits, and better working conditions. In fact, government intervention tends to impede this increase in productivity.
“I think a minimum wage is certainly in all of our best interests.”
How so? I’ve clearly shown how it isn’t. Any in-depth look at the effects of the MW show it’s pretty much an untenable policy. Saying that the MW is in everyone’s best interests implies that high production costs are preferable to low production costs, a completely nonsensical position.
“As liberals, as Democrats, a long-overdue cost-of-living increase in the minimum wage should be a higher priority than any short-term business liability.”
Just because it’s a well-intentioned policy doesn’t mean that it will create the desired results. Again, something being good for business doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s bad for workers.
“What I was originally speaking to in the first question Tyler quoted, though, was the out-and-out hypocrisy of Congress voting themselves a payraise, yet again, then turning around and saying that the lowest-paid workers don’t deserve it. To think: this Congress!”
Yeah, I don’t think that Congress ought to have the power to give themselves a pay raise at all.
What a great topic for me to write about on Labor Day!
It is nice to see that there are people on here that can summarize the supply and demand concept from Chapter 1 of an Economics 101 textbook (and Republican Party talking points). The fact of the matter is an increase in the minimum wage IS good for society.
First off iowa’playboy?’ you are wrong to say that “There are virtually no breadwinners making minimum wage.” Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 35 percent of workers who receive a minimum wage are their families’ sole earners.
Tyler claims that “employers will be willing to hire fewer workers than at the market rate because employers will no longer offer jobs that were only marginally profitable before the MW” - simplistic supply and demand argument.
However, in reality, not in some pie-in-the-sky theory, the minimum wages does not reduce the number of jobs offered. The non-partisan Fiscal Policy Institute produced a report in 2004 looking at how employment growth in states with a higher-than-federal minimum wage compared to those with the federal minimum wage.
“The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy – the years 1998 through 2000 – as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).
“In fact, when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states.”
You can check out reality for yourself at http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/minimumwageandsmallbusiness.pdf
Tyler also claims that raising the minimum wage will make “society generally poorer”. The truth is that taxpayers and society benefit from an increased minimum wage. Studies show that minimum wage only pay for about 34 percent of a family’s basic living costs. These families rely on the government - and taxpayers - to pick up the tab for much of the rest - housing assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, ECT. The self-sufficient these people are, the less they have to rely on taxpayers.
Dave, I hire mainly upstarts. I am also old enough to remember the last minimum wage increase. The reality is few of us pay minimum wage anyway. I know I don’t. With the exception being when I hire a 14-15 year old. In that case, until they become functional employees I am overpaying them even at minimum wage. God knows they won’t learn a work ethic in schools. Exactly the opposite. If the minimum wage goes to 7.25, I would not only not hire temporary Christmas help…(I am a small retailer), I would lay off one person. The reality is when the minimum wage is increased, every wage earner automatically they will get the same raise. As a college student, Dave, you haven’t lived through that part.
JNord, respectfully, first of all, you have to accept government and think-tank studies as fact. I live in the real world….I know better. There is absolutely no way 35% of minimum wage earners are main breadwinners. In that situation, the taxpayer is the main breadwinner….as there is the collosus of handouts that you point out above. All of those, not to mention prices on everything go up when the minimum wage is increased. You can follow that with every minimim wage increase. One other statistic goes up every time the minimum wage goes up. Unemployment. And it effects non-skilled wage earners more than any other thing a leftist could do to the economy.
The minimum wage is meant to give people the basic skills to move to the next level of employment. With the unemployment rate one of the lowest in our history, any “breadwinner” making close to minimum wage is doing so solely to qualify for government handouts. There are simply too many opportunities out there. The minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with self-sufficience….it never has.
You’re right that no “breadwinner” works for just minimum wage. Generally, they have to work two or three jobs to make enough money to support their families. If you don’t believe that these people exist, you are sadly mistaken. The condescending attitude you take towards everyone else who believes that there are people who are a hell of a lot worse off than you believe, is terrible. I live in the real world just as much as you, and frankly, given your dismissal of the belief of certain events in the world, and the tendency of those on your side of the aisle to dismiss anything we say as just brainwashed garbage coming from the liberal media, I have to say that if anyone is not grounded in reality, it is you.
“I would agree with you on the first and third things there. And for different reasons, the second thing. All wars are terrible, but my two sons both served there, Dave, and they both would go back. You’re watching too much of the moe, larry, and curly networks, CNN (Al-Jazeera, USA) and reading too much of the New York/Al-Queda Times, USA/Al Jazeera Today.”
Anyone who has paid attention to reality in the past four years knows that those three media outlets certainly tried their best to propagate the lies that led to this disaster of a war in the first place. Hell, a New York Times reporter got put in jail because she protected one of the administration officials that shamelessly outed a CIA operative. That same reporter repeated, chapter and verse, every piece of information she was fed by the administration, to have the administration cite it as “evidence” of their arguments. Anyone who actually watches CNN knows that they care a hell of a lot more about Jonbenet Ramsey than what’s going on in Iraq. The media have been willing participants in stifling the debate on Iraq.
Good for your sons, we all appreciate their service. But I speak for a large number of people here and around the country when I say that they deserve a hell of a lot better than to go back to that mess, and shame on the President who created it.
“It is nice to see that there are people on here that can summarize the supply and demand concept from Chapter 1 of an Economics 101 textbook (and Republican Party talking points). The fact of the matter is an increase in the minimum wage IS good for society.”
Well that’s quite a lovely naked assertion, but I don’t suppose you have any evidence for your claim, do you? And no begging the question.
“First off iowa’playboy?’ you are wrong to say that “There are virtually no breadwinners making minimum wage.” Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 35 percent of workers who receive a minimum wage are their families’ sole earners.”
Which means what exactly? The effects are the same whether 0% or 100% of MW earners are their household’s only income source.
“Tyler claims that “employers will be willing to hire fewer workers than at the market rate because employers will no longer offer jobs that were only marginally profitable before the MW” - simplistic supply and demand argument.”
Which also happens to be true. I could talk about the macroeconomic effects on production possiblities or aggregate supply, but since you can’t even grasp basic supply and demand, I see no point. Tell you what, unless you can tell me specifically what’s wrong with my points, don’t even waste my or your time.
“However, in reality, not in some pie-in-the-sky theory, the minimum wages does not reduce the number of jobs offered. The non-partisan Fiscal Policy Institute produced a report in 2004 looking at how employment growth in states with a higher-than-federal minimum wage compared to those with the federal minimum wage.”
First of all, can you name me a single exception to the law of supply and demand? Didn’t think so.
Second, the MW most certainly does produce unemployment, but the reasons why this is not reflected in some studies are numerous and complex. One important reason is that states that have a higher than federal MW tend to have higher market labor prices anyways, so the price floor doesn’t apply to hardly any positions, even though it’s higher in nominal dollars than in other states. Further, even though the MW is a cause of unemployment, it is by no means the only cause. Unemployment is going to be lower in areas where wages are higher, because higher wages are caused by a greater demand for labor. Ceteris Paribus, the quantity of a product/service (in this case labor) demanded decreases as prices increase, for this effect not to occur there would need to be an infinite supply of labor, something which clearly does not exist.
If you want see the effects of a high MW, check out Western Europe with it’s nearly ubiquitous double-digit unemployment amongst young, unskilled workers.
“The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy – the years 1998 through 2000 – as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).”
“In fact, when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states.”
Again, this is an effect primarily of higher nominal market wages in states with higher MW’s. If what this article is implying (that higher costs are preferable to lower costs) why not raise it to $50/hr? If government, by simple decree, can increase the amount of wealth in an economy, why not raise to $1000/hr, then we would all be rich, according to you. Of course this is a ridiculous proposition, but it’s the logical conclusion of the standard argument for the MW.
“Tyler also claims that raising the minimum wage will make “society generally poorer”. The truth is that taxpayers and society benefit from an increased minimum wage. Studies show that minimum wage only pay for about 34 percent of a family’s basic living costs. These families rely on the government - and taxpayers - to pick up the tab for much of the rest - housing assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, ECT. The self-sufficient these people are, the less they have to rely on taxpayers.”
Yes, more unemployed resources will result in less total production. The MW results in higher labor costs, and thus less labor being utilized. This is self-evident to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics. I seriously have a hard time believing that I actually have to defend this position.
So let’s hear the pro side, eh? Stop with the blatantly begged questions and and show me - factually - how I’m wrong.
“One other statistic goes up every time the minimum wage goes up. Unemployment.”
Not necessarily. If the price floor (MW in this case) is set below the equilibrium point, there will be no effect on the level of employment.