It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Reserve Says State Minimum Wage Hikes Have Cost Up to 200,000 Jobs

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why is that? They don't need supplemental income assistance.




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

If a business runs with a profit margin, they are improperly using payroll funds



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

If a business runs with a profit margin, they are improperly using payroll funds


Losing your point? Resorting to selective quoting?


If the business ran at a zero profit level it wouldn't be a subsidy. If a business runs with a profit margin, they are improperly using payroll funds, requiring me to pay taxes to supplement the lack of individual income to not be in poverty.


is what I said.

SNAP stands for SUPPLEMENTAL nutrional assistance program
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

is what I said.
I know what you said. Do you?
Do you know that those who pay minimum wage also are required to:

pay taxes to supplement the lack of individual income to not be in poverty.



Yes. I know what SNAP stands for.

SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities.
I see that it provides subsidies to people. I don't see the part about reimbursing employers. I don't see the part about tax breaks to employers. That's what subsidies are.





edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It doesn't REIMBURSE employers. It allows employers to keep money the government gives an individual to SUPPLEMENT their LACK of income.

I neither pay minimum wage nor benefit from SNAP. Other employers do.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Do you know that those who pay minimum wage also are required to:





Do you know that those who DON'T pay minimum wage pay those same taxes? I kinda know it personally, but hey that's just me.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I see that it provides subsidies to people. I don't see the part about reimbursing employers. I don't see the part about tax breaks to employers. That's what subsidies are.


If the employer paid enough to break the poverty line, SNAP wouldn't exist. Getting it yet?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

It allows employers to keep money the government gives an individual to SUPPLEMENT their LACK of income.
So, you think that the business should be buying food for its employees, paying their rent, as a business expense?


I neither pay minimum wage nor benefit from SNAP. Other employers do.
No, they don't benefit from SNAP. Their employees do, if they qualify. SNAP is not an employer subsidy. It is a person subsidy.



Do you know that those who DON'T pay minimum wage pay those same taxes?
Yes. I know that. What's your point.



edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'll try again


originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Phage
I see that it provides subsidies to people. I don't see the part about reimbursing employers. I don't see the part about tax breaks to employers. That's what subsidies are.


If the employer paid enough to break the poverty line, SNAP wouldn't exist. Getting it yet?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


If the employer paid enough to break the poverty line, SNAP wouldn't exist.
Really? What about people who don't have jobs? You know, the ones you are subsidizing 100%? They would just be left hungry?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again, who said anything about the unemployed? Would an assistance program exist for them? I sure hope so, but it wouldn't be the same as SNAP.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



Would an assistance program exist for them? I sure hope so, but it wouldn't be the same as SNAP.

Why not? SNAP is for people who are unemployed too, you know.


Working for low wages or working part-time;
Unemployed;
Receiving welfare or other public assistance payments;
Elderly or disabled and are low-income; or
Homeless.

www.fns.usda.gov...

So, paying minimum wage would make SNAP go away? Why?

The more money people make (even minimum wage) the less they get in benefits.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If full-time minimum work paid above the poverty line we could do away with assistance programs for the employed. We then could focus efforts on employing the unemployed by providing ONLY the basics for survival, nothing more. Want more? Get a job, because it's better for everyone that way.

I know I know, wall street and investors HATE progressive thinking such as my own.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




If full-time minimum work paid above the poverty line we could do away with assistance programs for the employed.


Ah. We could also do away with things like low inflation too, I suppose. That 'ol poverty line would just stay right there. Those places that are paying the low minimum wage would just be happy and keep their prices where they are.


We then could focus efforts on employing the unemployed by providing ONLY the basics for survival, nothing more.
You think they're getting more than that now? You think SNAP is providing more than they need?

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
You think they're getting more than that now? You think SNAP is providing more than they need?

Yes.

A steak dinner isn't required for survival. People on SNAP can afford steak dinners.
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yup. A single person with no income can get a whopping $194 a month for food. A family of 4, $649. That's way too much.
www.fns.usda.gov...


People on SNAP can afford steak dinners.
Sure. If they only want to eat for half the month.

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How much does a month of only food needed to survive run you think?

Link

Another
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)


Why is $194 needed again?
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
And when we have many full time workers at low wages who need welfare just to survive, like WalMart workers, how do they benefit the economy, which needs consumption? Economic growth will be better with a robust middle class of consumers. Masses of people in poverty is not the answer. The 0.1% has had over 30 years of gains while the middle class has lost ground, and nothing at all trickled down. Time to try something different. Look at how well the economy did when the middle class was thriving. Time to structure the regs and laws to promote middle class growth. The rich will keep getting richer, but the whole pie will be larger, so there will be something more than crumbs for the rest. Right now they get almost all of a pie that is 1X in size. Better for everone, including them, to have them "only" get 75% of a pie that is 2X in size. To grow the pie to 2X requires a robust middle class. This is all stuff we have seen before. It worked the last time we had an economy with this degree of inequality, why not repeat the successes of the past?
edit on 25-12-2015 by CobraBrent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

More than $100.
Your link offers ways of saving money. It doesn't say that it one can live on $100 a month.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Here you go a breakdown

*Add - Let's go ahead an account for inflation. I already know you will point out the date of that article. Inflation at a HIGH estimate is 2% a year.

So my bad it's actually $105 a month. Where does the other $89 go?
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join