Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2014, 06:35 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,458,643 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Thanks for clarifing the obvious. I dont "qualify" so I dont "apply"/claim for the credit.

I find it hilariously absurd that people max out their EITC by working half time, while childless full time workers earning minimum wage get nothing at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2014, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,629,107 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldous9 View Post
"We should pursue reforms that encourage and reward work. That’s why I am developing legislation to replace the earned income tax credit with a federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs," Rubio said. "This would allow an unemployed individual to take a job that pays, say, $18,000 a year -– which on its own is not enough to make ends meet –- but then receive a federal enhancement to make the job a more enticing alternative to collecting unemployment insurance."
Marco Rubio's Cure For Poverty? Subsidize Crummy Jobs, Make Massive Block Grants

Wait a minute here. How is this not "big government"? He wants the government to subsidize someone making 18k a year so that they will make what? 22k a year? So the government will cut the 18k worker a 4k check every year? A federal enhancement eh? That money comes from tax payers.

Why not just index minimum wage with inflation? The real minimum wage should be $10.24 anyway. Raising the minimum wage is a much better idea than the government subsidizing workers. Rubio's plan takes money from tax payers. It is actually wealth distribution. Raising the minimum wage doesn't do that.
It's another handout. I think the priority should be on getting jobs for those who do want to work, and then work on those who do not want to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,366,055 times
Reputation: 2922
I am proud of Rubio a {R} that has come out of the closet and has admitted he is a fascist with a dash of Marxism too boot. Take the example he gives where this would be a boon to companies like Walmart where wages are so low workers qualify for subsidies. In it's place the workers get a enhancement to make the job more enticing. LMAO, what is the difference between workers getting the present federal benefits from his idea?

Are they not both redistribution of wealth? does it not help and encourage Walmart and others to keep wages low knowing the stupid federal gvt will make up the difference?

What will be amusing around election time posters from the right will claim what a great conservative Rubio is and a tea party darling. Too me is he just a big gvt {R} and this idea will grow the gvt and if not who will administer the program?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,360,856 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
I am proud of Rubio a {R} that has come out of the closet and has admitted he is a fascist with a dash of Marxism too boot. Take the example he gives where this would be a boon to companies like Walmart where wages are so low workers qualify for subsidies. In it's place the workers get a enhancement to make the job more enticing. LMAO, what is the difference between workers getting the present federal benefits from his idea?

Are they not both redistribution of wealth? does it not help and encourage Walmart and others to keep wages low knowing the stupid federal gvt will make up the difference?

What will be amusing around election time posters from the right will claim what a great conservative Rubio is and a tea party darling. Too me is he just a big gvt {R} and this idea will grow the gvt and if not who will administer the program?
Did you say the same thing about Reagan? This is exactly the kind of revamping move that Reagan liked to do. The welfare state is here for the foreseeable future. If we can't get rid of it, why not at least make it smarter? This would encourage people to get on the employment ladder, and once on it, most are going to start climbing. Most are not going to stay at Walmart for 45 years.

If you demand everything or nothing in politics, you're going to walk away with NOTHING every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
I betcha corporations will be behind Rubio 100% because then people can go crying to the government for a "fair living wage" via government subsidies.

Why not subsidize everyone to $40K a year ?
As Pelosi says..welfare spending creates jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,461 posts, read 7,089,783 times
Reputation: 11702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
I am proud of Rubio a {R} that has come out of the closet and has admitted he is a fascist with a dash of Marxism too boot. Take the example he gives where this would be a boon to companies like Walmart where wages are so low workers qualify for subsidies. In it's place the workers get a enhancement to make the job more enticing. LMAO, what is the difference between workers getting the present federal benefits from his idea?

Are they not both redistribution of wealth? does it not help and encourage Walmart and others to keep wages low knowing the stupid federal gvt will make up the difference?

What will be amusing around election time posters from the right will claim what a great conservative Rubio is and a tea party darling. Too me is he just a big gvt {R} and this idea will grow the gvt and if not who will administer the program?
Rubio has lost any credibility he once had with true fiscal Conservatives, his yellow RINO stripe can be seen a mile away now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,366,055 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Did you say the same thing about Reagan? This is exactly the kind of revamping move that Reagan liked to do. The welfare state is here for the foreseeable future. If we can't get rid of it, why not at least make it smarter? This would encourage people to get on the employment ladder, and once on it, most are going to start climbing. Most are not going to stay at Walmart for 45 years.

If you demand everything or nothing in politics, you're going to walk away with NOTHING every time.
I agree with your last statement that there has to be compromise and you can't always get what you want. But this idea is no better then the present system and too boot will grow the gvt.

You say most are not going to stay at Walmart but if a person does not find a good paying job why would they leave? Most jobs being created today are low paying and people will consider if it is in their best interest to take 50cents or a buck more or lose some of their enhancement. Myself, I would rather have a easy physical job like Walmart then bust my a$$ at a warehouse making the same minus the enhancement.

I will leave it at that because neither of us know any details and I doubt very seriously that Rubio will even draft them. I think he is just talking smack too show off his compassionate conservative credentials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,366,055 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I betcha corporations will be behind Rubio 100% because then people can go crying to the government for a "fair living wage" via government subsidies.

Why not subsidize everyone to $40K a year ?
As Pelosi says..welfare spending creates jobs.
That is a solid point and you could bet Rubio's coffers will be filled to the brim with Walmart and corporation money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 08:15 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
20,126 posts, read 16,159,824 times
Reputation: 28335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldous9 View Post
The Earned Income Tax Credit reduces the amount of taxes low and moderate income people pay.You heard some families receive 8k? Nonsense man. In the case of someone workers who make really low wages the EIC can eliminate their tax bill and they will actually get a refund from government (of money they never paid). But the most I've seen in this regard is bout $500.

Rubio's plan is to eliminate the EIC, which I don't think is a bad idea. But he's replacing it with a program where the government subsidizes low wage workers. The government shouldn't be doing this. Kind of hypocritical for Rubio to talk about "big government" and then propose this. Compared to this plan raising the minimum wage would be a "small government" idea.
According to the CBPP:
Quote:
During the 2010 tax year, the average EITC was $2,805 for a family with children and $262 for a family without children.
The average for a family with three kids was around $5,800.

But I agree that what Rubio is proposing is not much different other than taking children out of the equation. It is income redistribution, just like EIC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2014, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,360,856 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I betcha corporations will be behind Rubio 100% because then people can go crying to the government for a "fair living wage" via government subsidies.

Why not subsidize everyone to $40K a year ?
As Pelosi says..welfare spending creates jobs.
Why not? Obviously because it would cost more. At least this is an honest, above-board approach to helping low-wage, low-skill workers, as opposed to the minimum wage, which does not help most of them and has numerous deleterious effects. I'm sure that Walmart will support this proposal, but that doesn't necessarily prove that it's a bad idea. any more than the fact that most of the left opposes it proves that it is a good idea:

Marco Rubio's "Anti-Poverty" Agenda Would Create Two Americas | The Poverty Line, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

What Pelosi says is neither here nor there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top