Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Yea, and that’s why it’s far less expensive than it’s being implied by some news organizations.
|
I'm confused. How can paying someone money they never put into the system be far less expensive than returning some of the money they did put into the system? If the parents of Dick and Jane aren't paying taxes into the system then the entire $600 "tax credit" is coming out of my pocket. Sure, it's less expensive for Dick and Jane's parents but it's more expensive for me and the rest of the tax-paying citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
The reason people aren’t taking low-paying jobs is because they’re low paying. If you read the papers and pay attention to more than just Fox News, you’ll find out that lots of well-known companies are raising their lower end pay scales which has largely eliminated their inability to attract new employees. The economic law of supply and demand is working!
|
In your mind do you see a lot of people sitting at home with no income because they made a choice to go hungry rather than taking a low-paying job? In my mind I see an economic decision to take unemployment plus a $7.50/hour (based on a 40 hour week) Federal paycheck to sit at home rather than taking a $10/hour job.
A lot of well-known companies have been forced to raise their lower-end pay scales because they are competing against the Federal Government. Together, the State and Federal Governments are paying people more to stay home and so the companies have to increase wages to compete successfully. But it isn't quite a fair fight since the Federal Government has bottomless pockets - they don't have to earn a profit to pay for the wages, the Fed Govt just writes checks.