The current minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour. However, many states have imposed their own minimum wages because living in those states is more expensive. California, for example, has a minimum wage of $8.00. So why not get rid of the national minimum wage and let the states set their own? The Constitution gives the federal government no such power and this should be left to the states.
But even the states have a problem with minimum wages. Within a state, it may be more expensive to live in one city than another. For example, it is much more costly to live in San Francisco, where the minimum wage is $9.79, than in Fresno. So why not have each city set their own minimum wage as is being done in San Francisco? Why hasn’t New York City raised its minimum wage as it is certainly more expensive to live in New York City than in Buffalo.
But wait. Even within cities there can be a big disparity in the cost of living based on neighborhood. It is much more expensive to live in Manhattan than it is in Queens. Even within Manhattan, it is more expensive to live in the Upper East Side than in Washington Heights. Even within neighborhoods, the cost of living in different buildings varies.
All this may seem quite absurd, but so is the minimum wage. Each person is an individual with their own needs and wants, their own cost of living. Broken down logically, each person has their own minimum wage at which they are willing to work. In other words, no government law can boost the minimum wage of all people. Or more accurately, we would need millions of minimum wage laws to help each state, each city, each neighborhood, each street, and each person or small group of people.
In reality, minimum wage laws creates winners and losers. Those whose incomes increase will benefit from the minimum wage, but at the same time those who can no longer produce enough profit at the increased wage will lose their jobs because of the minimum wage. And all consumers will pay more for goods and services as the government forces up wages.
The minimum wage sounds great in theory (for employees, not employers). Unfortunately we live in a reality where a minimum wage does more harm than good.
The estate tax returns on January 1, 2011. While liberals, anti-capitalists, and haters of the wealthy applaud this development, they do not realize that the tax they favor encourages the corporatism they despise so much.
When the owner of a successful small business or small farm passes away, he would love to leave his profitable business to his children, if they want it. However, with the return of the estate tax, the inheritors of the business will have to turn over to the government 55 percent of the value of the business over one million dollars. Not many business owners have 55 percent of their wealth sitting in cash available to cover the estate tax. The heirs are now left with few choices. The easiest solution for the business owner before his death or the heirs after they inherit the business is to sell the business and the most likely buyer would be a large corporation. Another option would be to close the business entirely, also benefiting the corporation competing with it. Other options include selling part of the business or taking a loan, though these are just short-term solutions that add nothing to the business’s ability to succeed.
As a result, many small businesses are shut down or sold to corporations upon the death of its founder because of estate taxes. Furthermore, this discourages many individuals from starting their own businesses because they know it will be very difficult to pass it on to their children and all their success will end up in the hands of some large faceless corporation.
If we want a nation of entrepreneurs, small business, and a thriving Main Street, we need to permanently eliminate estate taxes. If you want a world where those with brains, energy, and drive are discouraged from developing their ideas and talents, big businesses dominate, and Wall Street is more important than Main Street, we should let the estate tax return as is currently planned. The choice is yours.
Posted in Economics, Redistribution, Taxes, Unintended consequences
Tagged Business, Dialysis, Inheritance tax, Republican Party (United States), Small business, Tax, United States, Wall Street
Everybody is talking about the impending largest tax increase in history due on January 1, 2011. In addition to the cost this imposes on the economy, there is the uncertainty this creates. The Giant Wakes writes:
The Bottom Line: Until the uncertainty surrounding the future Federal tax rates is resolved, it will remain yet another factor conspiring to keep businesses sitting in the economic sidelines, waiting for clear signals before committing capital to growth – and, the uncertainty had better be resolved in favor of sustaining the current rates rather than increasing them, if we hope to see an end to the ‘jobless recovery’ and any kind of broad-based improvement in consumer economic circumstances any time soon.
While The Giant Wakes may write about government intervention in a future post within his ten-part series called “Ten Tyrants of Uncertainty,” I thought I’ll jump ahead and add to the discussion.
Which is a bigger deterrent to economic activity: tax uncertainty or the uncertainty of government intervention? When government steps in to bail out one company at the expense of another, economic calculation is thrown out the window. And this does not just apply to corporations where our government may bail out GM thus hurting Ford or give billions to large banks while letting small banks fail. It also applies to each of us an individual. Those of us who are responsible, paying our mortgages each month or not buying a house knowing we cannot afford one, are now paying for those who irresponsibly bought more house than they could afford but whose mortgages have been “modified” by the government.
As a result, we now have a bipolar economy. We have those who have abandoned all risk taking, not knowing what the government will do. And we have those who take extreme risks, believing the government will bail them out if they fail. In the mean time, nobody is taking the reasonable calculated risks that are essential to a productive and profitable economy.
Posted in big government, Economics, Redistribution, Regulation, Taxes, Unintended consequences
Tagged big government, Business, Economic, economics, Government, Public sector, Tax, Tax rate, taxation, taxes, Uncertainty, United States
Britain will stick to its timetable for making the largest cuts in government spending in decades, the chancellor of the exchequer said Wednesday, vowing that the sweeping measures would bring the country “back from the brink” of bankruptcy.
Critics charge that the plan to cut spending by 83 billion pounds ($130.4 billion) between 2011 and 2015 threatens to send the economy back into recession, just as a recovery is losing steam.
Delivering the long-awaited, comprehensive spending review to parliament, Osborne said the austerity plan “is a hard road, but it leads to a better future.”
The plan will reduce spending across government departments by an average of 19% over four years and is expected to result in 490,000 public-sector job losses over that period.
There is no doubt about it; these cuts will be painful, but not nearly as painful as doing nothing and going bankrupt. Too many governments, political leaders, and populations have their heads in the sand. Action needs to be taken to stave off a credit crisis. Those countries that do so may feel some short-term pain, but they will be at a competitive advantage five or ten years from now.
Meanwhile, the US has not cut a dime from its budget. Instead, all the talk in the current Congress and the White House has been about more stimulus. Hopefully, this will change on November 2.
Posted in big government, Economics, politics, Redistribution, Stimulus spending, Taxes
Tagged Austerity, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, government spending, Public sector, spending review, United States, White House