Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 29, 2018

One of the first definitive studies of Seattle's experiment with the "living wage" was published by the authoritative National Bureau of Economic Research. It is titled Minimum Wage Increases and Individual Employment Trajectories. This study is a fairly complete and longitudinal study of low-wage workers who should have benefited from the wage hike.

The results were shocking: the bottom line is that average net earnings only increased $10/week, hours were cut, new people were not hired, experienced workers got all the benefit, but to make the weekly wage they had been making, the experienced workers had to find a second job outside of the city limits so as to not violate the living wage law. The net result is that supposedly progressive Seattle employers are paying no more than $3/per week/per covered worker in excess of what they paid before the 2014 law.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

We draw counterfactual observations using nearest-neighbor matching and derive effect estimates by comparing the "treated" cohort to a placebo cohort drawn from earlier data. We attribute significant hourly wage increases and hours reductions to the policy. On net, the minimum wage increase from $9.47 to as much as $13 per hour raised earnings by an average of $8-$12 per week. The entirety of these gains accrued to workers with above-median experience at baseline; less-experienced workers saw no significant change to weekly pay. Approximately one-quarter of the earnings gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in Seattle with work outside the city limits. We associate the minimum wage ordinance with an 8% reduction in job turnover rates as well as a significant reduction in the rate of new entries into the workforce.
In short, not what was promised or expected by the politicians and unions pushing the living wage ordinance.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 07:00 PM | Reply

So experienced worker income went up along with hourly rates, but hours worked went down. So more free time and possibility of working closer to home.
Employee turnover dropped. Good for workers and employers.

Sounds terrible./s Not at all the apocolyspe that Reich wingers predicted. Once again facts have a left wing bias.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-29 07:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"The results were shocking: the bottom line is that average net earnings only increased $10/week"

So the same disappointing results in wages are a stunning success in tax cuts.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-29 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So experienced worker income went up along with hourly rates, but hours worked went down. So more free time and possibility of working closer to home.

Uhhh, no, not exactly. The average net earnings increase was only $10 per week, with 25% of that attributable to experienced workers who saw gains having to take a second job to make up for the cut hours, so they had to work two jobs to make $10 more a week. Simple math tells us that those workers had to work another job to net an additional $0.25 per hour over their prior hourly rate, assuming a 40/hour week. Actually, once you do the math, pretty disastrous compared to the promises made by the Dems and their Union overlords.

Once again, understanding facts is not a left wing strength, but you didn't realize that there would be math on this quiz.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#3

Deflection noted.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 07:59 PM | Reply

Your link goes to a summary, huh?

Not a lot to work with there.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-29 08:10 PM | Reply

#4 Yes, exactly. Average weekly pay went up a bit, since wage rates went up, hours worked went down. 25% of the small pay raise for experienced workers came from other jobs, 75% of the pay raise was due to the hourly rate increase.

So my point stands. Average income went up, good for workers. Hours worked went down so more free time for workers, also good for workers. Staff turnover dropped, good for everyone.

Once again Reich wingers don't understand that most workers prefer to get paid more and work less. Duh.

#7 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-29 08:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Unless you want to pay for it or have a .gov email address, that is as good as it is going to get. My firm has a subscription but I am not going to violate their copyright by posting it.

This summary is actually better than most NBER summaries in that it isn't so esoteric to be virtually indecipherable.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 08:57 PM | Reply

#7

Impressive how you are able to gild a giant turd. Employers are paying $3/hour more, but with hour reductions workers are netting $.025/hour increase. To make up for the lost hours, 25% of employees are taking a second job outside the city limits, and new hiring has dropped, all with record low unemployment. The rest of the employees are working less hours but really not making any more money.

The whole point was to put more than $10 per week into workers pockets, the politicians pushing this promised 10x that gain.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 09:06 PM | Reply

Seattle minimum wage studies by researchers at the University of Washington and the University of California Berkeley suggested polar opposite effects. The basic supply and demand model just doesn't work for the labor market. In a perfect study, only the minimum wage differences could lead to different job and wage trends in the experiment and the control group. But in the real world, no two geographic locations have identical employers or workers or economies, and each of those factors affects jobs regardless of minimum wages. These researchers used individual pay records to see if low-wage workers lost jobs when the minimum wage rose. Mom-and-pop retailers were counted, but McDonald's, Amazon and the like were not. Mom & pop are typically cash flow constrained businesses. Research points to monopsony, a sort of monopoly whereby the business has buying power over labor rather than selling power over buyers.

All this proves is that employers have more bargaining power than workers, because worker unions have been busted in a giant conspiracy run by corporations and government. This class war story is as old as civilization. Taft-Hartley set the post WWII stage. From 1850 to about the 1900 people organized and marched putting their lives on the line while the police, national guard and US Army was used to beat and shot strikers and demonstrators in the streets until life became so unbearable that hundreds of thousands took to the streets causing the Carnegie, Morgan and Rockefeller to pause and decide that the only way to stop the growing threat of socialism was to recognize unions, increase wages, improve workplace safety and legislate workers compensation. It took cross trade strikes to finally break the industrial capitalists, a behavior which Taft-Hartley has rendered illegal. The only labor action which came close to those revolts in an earlier century was when the longshoresmen shut down West coast ports. That strike was settled quickly. Otherwise, in today's world, every service sector worker is negotiating against a deep pocketed company, with multiple applications for every job.

Hell, even RoC supposed $10/week

#10 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-29 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

oops ...is more than Ryan's $75 a year "gift".

#11 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-29 09:32 PM | Reply

"The basic supply and demand model just doesn't work for the labor market."
"Research points to monopsony, a sort of monopoly whereby the business has buying power over labor rather than selling power over buyers."
"in today's world, every service sector worker is negotiating against a deep pocketed company, with multiple applications for every job."

This can't be right.
This isn't what Nullifidian learned in Econ 101 half a century ago.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-29 09:37 PM | Reply

#10

NutBay, if you are going to cut and paste, at least give us the link.

As for your tax cut meme, your progressive narrative masters need to update their math: to use round numbers, a family of four making $50Kwill save around $1700 in taxes from the tax cut, a similar family making $100K will save $3000.

If I make $100,000, how big will my tax cut be in 2018?

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 09:47 PM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Danforth refers to that as "MATH".

He's absolutely right.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-29 09:49 PM | Reply

comparing $100K a year job, which almost always comes with substantial benefits, with someone sucking down $15/hour with no benefits is a meaningless comparison in so many ways, including taxation, as to be absurd to even bring up, whereas Ryan's post, which he quickly removed, is relevant for service sector workers.

someday RoC will make a valid point, but I'm still waiting. His "definitive" study, is nothing but the usual BS applauded by business groups, such as the National Restaurant Association. Labor organizations promote studies that find minimum wage hikes create positive changes for workers and the economy and then turn around and exclude themselves from minimum wage laws in order to negotiate better benefits.

The point is it is very difficult to correct for all the variables which impact minimum wage outcomes in a world of continuously changing technology, the endless boom-bust cycle, across different industries and regions.

#15 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-29 10:10 PM | Reply

I'm not making that comparison, you were the one to try to deflect to the tax cut.

People making minimum wage don't pay taxes, but I am sure you knew that.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 10:22 PM | Reply

Everyone pays taxes. Just some of us are allowed to skip paying some taxes because we are too poor.

Still: Everyone pays taxes.

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-10-29 10:36 PM | Reply

#17

Point taken. What I meant is that the tax cut will have little effect on non-filers.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-29 11:01 PM | Reply

a family of four making $50Kwill save around $1700 in taxes from the tax cut

Less than half the promised $4000 for a family that isn't even at median household income. Even with that extra ~$190 a month they're probably still underwater with rising prices or consumables and other items.

But yaaaaaay! You're right for once! People will never again make enough money to be comfortable living in the USA, despite the "booming" economy! Congrats! I'm so proud of you.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-29 11:03 PM | Reply

"People making minimum wage don't pay taxes, but I am sure you knew that."

You should check out how much sales tax is in Seattle.
(Hint: It's more than zero.)

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-29 11:04 PM | Reply

"People making minimum wage don't pay taxes"

That's not true at all.

For example, let's switch the discussion to the type of taxes the vast majority of workers pay the most of: payroll taxes. 2/3rds of worker pay more in payroll taxes over their lifetimes than income taxes.

Now...who pays a higher percentage of his income in federal taxes: the minimum wage worker, or the guy who opens $90,000 in dividends from Proctor & Gamble?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-29 11:41 PM | Reply

#14 Nope what #9 is called is confirmation bias. ROC and you wanted a minimum wage increase to harm workers.

It didn't. They earned more money for less hours worked.

Also the summary doesn't say 25% of the workers got second jobs. It says 25% of the increase was due to second jobs. Those are not remotely the same.

Brush up on English and Math and try again, this time without your bias showing.

#22 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-30 12:52 AM | Reply

Everyone pays taxes. Just some of us are allowed to skip paying some taxes because we are too poor.

So if you are allowed to "skip" paying taxes, did you actually pay them?

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 10:29 AM | Reply

And here we go with the liberals on this site reducing themselves to nit picking types of taxes and percentages of income.

Flat payroll tax. Period. For everyone. No deductions. It's the only fair way.

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 10:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

But wait, the corporations got a big tax cut so surely hourly wages increased right? This is a bunch of crap. If hours decreased it was because those businesses needed less labor which probably is a result of doing less business.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-30 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Flat payroll tax. Period. For everyone. No deductions. It's the only fair way."

Yeah, let's increase the taxes poor people pay so that rich folks can have another tax cut they don't need. Brilliant! Hey poor folks, it's only fair for you to starve and freeze in the winter

#26 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-30 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If hours decreased it was because those businesses needed less labor which probably is a result of doing less business. Which was brought on by an arbitrary increase in operating expenses, namely - wages.

I like how Danni seems to believe that any company can easily absorb any and all increases in costs imposed on them by government.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 11:51 AM | Reply

"Flat payroll tax. Period. For everyone. No deductions. It's the only fair way.".

IOW, you just lowered the taxes on the minimum wage worker, and raised them on the dividend opener. Your Republican masters are NOT going to be happy.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 01:05 PM | Reply

"And here we go with the liberals on this site reducing themselves to nit picking types of taxes and percentages of income."

What a riot. You're doing the exact same thing you're condemning: cherry picking a specific tax that underscores your point, while ignoring the full equation.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Love how the "tax cut bad" parrots of Priorities USA have hijacked the thread, which is what deflections are intended to do.

Back on topic, this does not reflect well on both the living wage statute and the supposedly progressive employers of Seattle. Much of the country is watching this carefully to see what can be done to make this work for minimum wage employees, but the Seattle System (as defined in the NBER study isn't working as intended.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yeah, let's increase the taxes poor people pay so that rich folks can have another tax cut they don't need.

I didnt say tax cut. Stop being jealous of the rich. I said give EVERYONE the same percentage tax rate. It's only fair.

We are equal in this nation. Your vote doesnt mean more than mine. I shouldnt have to pay a higher percentage in income tax than you no matter how much I make. Period. end of story.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 02:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz,

I understand the fairness aspect of a flat tax. However, I disagree with it. Even Adam Smith favored progressive taxation.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your vote doesnt mean more than mine.

Depends on what state you live in.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-30 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I said give EVERYONE the same percentage tax rate."

You don't know what you're talking about. Republicans just rewrote the tax bill. Someone opening up $90,000 in dividend checks from Proctor and Gamble pays NO federal taxes. The minimum wage worker pays more federal taxes IN ONE DAY.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I shouldnt have to pay a higher percentage in income tax than you no matter how much I make. Period. end of story."

So you're willing to give up the tax breaks you get on your military pension?

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So you're willing to give up the tax breaks you get on your military pension?

My pension is federally taxed. What are you talking about?

#36 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 02:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Someone opening up $90,000 in dividend checks from Proctor and Gamble pays NO federal taxes.

I dont think you are right...

Qualified dividends, on the other hand, are taxed at the capital gains rates, which are lower. For the 2018 tax year, you will not need to pay any taxes on qualified dividends as long as you have $38,600 or less of ordinary income. If you have between $38,600 and $425,800 of ordinary income, then you will pay a tax rate of 15% on qualified dividends. The rate for $425,801 or more is 20%. You can see these rates broken out by income in the tables below.

You are pissed at someone getting an interest check for $38k or less?

#37 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 02:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

He's pissed that investment income isn't taxed as labor income. It's pretty straightforward.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-30 02:57 PM | Reply

You are pissed at someone getting an interest check for $38k or less?

#37 | Posted by boaz

No. The issue is that if you rig your "ordinary income" to be less than $38,600, you pay zero income tax on "qualified dividends".

I'm guessing that with the right accountant or perks package it's not hard to make one's income that low.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-30 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39,

Then eliminate deductions.

#40 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 03:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#39 It is very easy to manage declared income if you have a business. That is what I do. My tax rate is embarrassingly low. I am my own accountant, so it doesn't require fancy knowledge to do this.

The salaried middle class are paying way more than their fair share of income taxes. You can thank the GOP for that, they work for their donors and pander to the stupid for the votes they need.

#41 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-30 03:29 PM | Reply

#40 You can't eliminate deductions without eliminating business expenses, which would bankrupt the vast majority of businesses.
How is the bitcoin business going?

#42 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-30 03:30 PM | Reply

Back on topic, a rigorous analysis of Seattle's minimum wage increase found that workers got paid more for less work. Not as much more as some predicted but a much better outcome than the Milton school of economists predicted.

Lets see how it works as business and customers adjust to the new service costs over time.
No need to pay attention to the arm flapping idealoges that businesses to set all the terms of employement.

#43 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-30 03:34 PM | Reply

say businesses get to*

#44 | Posted by bored at 2018-10-30 03:35 PM | Reply

"Then eliminate deductions."

You just put every business out of business. Nice werk!

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 03:56 PM | Reply

"You are pissed at someone getting an interest check for $38k or less?"

No, I'm pissed at someone who believes that analysis is correct. It's not. I'm talking about someone opening $90K of qualified dividends (the vast majority of dividends, and 100% of what a McDonalds, Abbot Labs, or P&G pay out) paying less federal taxes than the minimum wage worker employed for one day.

If you don't like folks cherry-picking parameters and results to fit their argument, stop cherry-picking parameters and results to fit your argument.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:01 PM | Reply

He's pissed that investment income isn't taxed as labor income. It's pretty straightforward.

He's a liberal. Always looking for free (Extra) money for social programs.

I dont think there should be special words for income. Income is income. It should all be taxed the same percentage. Period.

#47 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 04:04 PM | Reply

How is the bitcoin business going?

Sucking ass at the moment. Waiting for the January bounce.

#48 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 04:05 PM | Reply

#46,

You are doing it, why shouldnt I?

#49 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 04:07 PM | Reply

"He's a liberal. Always looking for free (Extra) money for social programs."

I'm a math kid. I'm actually looking for what you're claiming you want in principle: a fair tax code.

This one is not it, by a long shot. Instead of closing loopholes, they kept them all, and opened a few new ones. In the big equation, middle class workers are getting less than $300 billion, and they'll be expected to pay a larger portion of not only the $1.5 Trillion additionally borrowed, but the $600 Billion in interest over the years.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:08 PM | Reply

"You are doing it, why shouldnt I?"

1. You began this by complaining I was doing what you were doing.
2. You've made several major errors in your claims; you should at least know what you're talking about before making broad proclamations.
3. Your 38K claim was moving the goalposts.
4, If you eliminate deductions you eliminate the ability of business to do business.
5. The rich DO NOT want everyone to pay the same rate. Stop deluding yourself.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:12 PM | Reply

"You are pissed at someone getting an interest check for $38k or less?"

Look up the definition of "ordinary income". You're talking about something completely different.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:13 PM | Reply

Danforth, would you mind jumping off a bridge?

That way we can get rid of Boaz.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 04:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Shut up Snoofy,

Danforth,

Do the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes collected in this nation?

#54 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 04:20 PM | Reply

"Do the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes collected in this nation?" - #54 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 04:20 PM

Nope.

#55 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 04:29 PM | Reply

In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes.Feb 1, 2017

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

taxfoundation.org

Shut up Hans, adults are talking...

Sorry Danforth, before we were interrupted by my child, can you answer the question?

#56 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 04:37 PM | Reply

Do the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes collected in this nation?
#54 | POSTED BY BOAZ

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes
#56 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Boaz, let me explain this in no uncertain terms:

You really monkeyed that up!

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 04:44 PM | Reply

"adults are talking..." - #56 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-10-30 04:37 PM

Then what are you doing here?

The top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 percent of all federal income taxes.

source

Since you're apparently using Vernon's Calculator™ I'll make it easy for you, pfc. boazotoes:
37.80 percent =/= "the majority of the taxes collected in this nation"
You're welcome.

#58 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 04:48 PM | Reply

"In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes"

INCOME taxes, Not payroll taxes, not excise taxes, not ad valorum taxes. Stop pretending income taxes are the only kind of federal taxes. The vast majority of workers (2/3rds) pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than INCOME taxes.

So, if your question is "Do the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes collected in this nation?"

The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"37.80 percent =/= "the majority of the taxes collected in this nation""

Correct. And if income taxes are, say, 55% of the total federal taxes collected, that would be LESS THAN 21%.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Ever notice how pfc. boazotoes disappears right after he's been humiliated?

Even after asking "can you answer the question?".

Happens every time.

#61 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 05:01 PM | Reply

Boaz, let's go back to the beginning. Answer some basic questions:

1. How many different types of Federal taxes can you name?

2. What percentage of federal taxes collected are income taxes?

3. Does a couple making $120,000 a year pay more in payroll taxes or income taxes?

4. Who pays the highest percentage of his income in federal taxes:
a) The investor making $1,000,000 in long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
b) The business owner making $1,000,000,000 in corporate profits.
c) The wage earner making $130,000 a year.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#62,

You nitpick Danforth. If the country has that many "types" of federal taxes, then we need to change that, as we are only supposed to be taxed ONCE.

Ever notice how pfc. boazotoes disappears right after he's been humiliated?

Unlike you, Hans, my job is being creepy and keeping random posts from internet blogs, I actually have a job.

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 06:05 PM | Reply

"Unlike you, Hans, my job is being creepy..." - #63 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-10-30 06:05 PM

And you do an exemplary job, pfc. boazotoes.

#64 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 06:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You nitpick Danforth." - Posted by pfc. boazotoes©

You were the one who asked "Do the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes collected in this nation?".

It isn't Danforth's (nor my) fault that we proved that wrong.

Man-up, for once, pfc. boazotoes.

#65 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 06:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"You nitpick Danforth."

You make false claims, and I'm trying to educate you. If you understood, you'd know I'm not nitpicking at all. Ultimately, you're ignoring over 40% of federal taxes paid.

Again: start by answering the questions; you might learn something. You can either look up the answers, or admit you don't know the answer and I'll tell you.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If the country has that many "types" of federal taxes, then we need to change that, as we are only supposed to be taxed ONCE."

Would you prefer to pay your income tax when you buy beer, or pay your firearm taxes on your 1040?

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 06:34 PM | Reply

Boaz, where'd you go? Still researching the answers?

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 08:58 PM | Reply

Boaz, where'd you go? Still researching the answers?

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-10-30 08:58 PM | REPLY

He went looking for a trans woman and a drag queen to commune with.

#69 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 09:07 PM | Reply

"You nitpick Danforth. If the country has that many "types" of federal taxes, then we need to change that, as we are only supposed to be taxed ONCE."

Where does it say we are only supposed to be taxed once?

Or... is asking that question nit-picking too???

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 09:44 PM | Reply

#69

Don't you live like 1200 miles away...that's a long drive.

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 10:20 PM | Reply

" hours were cut, "

Here's a great takeaway. Cut minimum wage to $3.35/hr. Hours will absolutely go up as people will need to work four jobs to survive.

Problem solved.

#72 | Posted by 726 at 2018-10-31 08:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

4. Who pays the highest percentage of his income in federal taxes:
a) The investor making $1,000,000 in long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
b) The business owner making $1,000,000,000 in corporate profits.
c) The wage earner making $130,000 a year.

#62 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-10-30 05:02 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Boaz won't answer that because he KNOWS it shoots his argument right between the eyes.

a) 20% on LTG and Dividends or $200,000. $1,000,000 x 3.8% Net investment income tax $38,000. 500 gal of gas x .184 = $92. So $238,092 or 23.8%
b) flat 21%.
c) $128,400 x .0765% = $9,823 FICA + $22,610 of income tax + $92 of gas tax total $32,525 or 25%.

But hey, let's pretend the guy with $1,000,000 is the most taxed person in the world.

#73 | Posted by 726 at 2018-10-31 08:55 AM | Reply

" Cut minimum wage to $3.35/hr. Hours will absolutely go up as people will need to work four jobs to survive.
Problem solved."

This is in fact what the GOP wants.
Plenty of Southern states don't even have a state minimum wage.
Meaning if Congress would just undo what people like JeffJ call the Federal overreach of minimum wage, problem solved.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 11:13 AM | Reply

"$128,400 x .0765% = $9,823 FICA"

One aspect you're overlooking:

While normally the other $9,823 is matched by the employer, if your employer went belly up, or skipped town, or in any other way didn't pay and can't be made to pay...YOU are legally responsible.

So in the legal equation, the total FICA taxes are 19,646, and that employer match is part of your compensation. That would make total taxes 43,353 of a new compensation number ($138,223), for an effective tax rate of 31.36%

So not only is the W-2 guy the most heavily taxed, the differential is even worse. Break it down, he's paying a federal rate 49% higher than the billionaire.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-31 07:54 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort