Originally Posted By Darkbeer So if they raise the minimum wage $2 per hour, but allow employers to claim the tip credit of $3 an hour, we are talking about a loss of just $1 per hour... So the REAL loss is about $2,000 a year, not $14,000..... (40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year) Talk about pandering and a bunch of BS.... Talk about
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's talk a bit more about tips... The IRS uses 8% in its required calculations regarding allocated tips. This really is about 10% paid to the server, as most servers are expected to tip out the folks who help them, such as bussers, dishwashers, cooks, bartenders, etc... Most places are now computerized and keep track of each individual server's sales and credit card info. At the end of the night, the system calculates the amount of expected tips, by taking 8% of the cash sales (after eliminating take out orders, merchandise, etc.) and then the actual amount of tips on the credit card slips. Most employees do not count their tips (at this time), and just uses the computer number as the amount to report. Some employees do actually count their tips and report the full amount, as they want to get Social Security, Unemployment, Disability, etc. on the full amount. But many employees don't. If they just claim the amount the computer states, then the company will not allocate any tips on the W-2 at the end of the year. (If they do allocate tips for reporting less than 8%, than the employee is responsible thru detailed records that they made less than the amount shown on the W-2). Now, many employees make more than 8% on tips (even after tipping out fellow employees), heck I made hundreds of dollars on a busy night when I was a bartender, sometimes as much as 25% of my sales. Even a slow day brought in 20% in many cases. And if a tipped employee doesn't like the new rules, they always have the opportunity to find another place that is willing to pay a higher wage, or find a new line of work..... But having been in the business for years, and have seen many managers ended up getting paid less than servers due to the tips, I don't think many folks will give up their shifts just because they are getting paid a $1 less in wages per hour.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer More pork in the bill.... <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008743" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110008743</a> >>This week the Senate will vote on a political compromise that combines an increase in the minimum wage with a cut in the federal death tax. The bill needs 60 votes to defeat a liberal filibuster, and nearly all of the 55 Republicans are in favor. So we are about to find out if Senate Democrats are more interested in achieving the policy goals they claim to want, or merely in blow-everything-up obstruction. The same bill passed the House last week by 230 to 180, with 34 Democrats in favor. But in the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid professes to be outraged that the GOP would wrap these two issues together, and he's leaning hard on Democrats to vote no. This is the same Harry Reid who complains that the GOP never compromises, and the same Democrats who've been demanding a vote to raise the minimum wage. We'll concede that this Senate sausage is far from ideal. The increase in the minimum wage--to $7.25 from $5.15 over three years--will cost many of the young and unskilled their jobs. Young black men who lack a high school diploma will be hit especially hard. But frightened GOP "moderates" in the House were already going to surrender on the minimum wage, so at least this package bids to get something good for the economy in return. The sausage also contains far too many special-interest tax and other breaks--notably a tax rate reduction on certain timber sales, and a provision for mine cleanup and miner health care. But most of these freebies are designed specifically to attract Democratic Senators to finally vote yes. The mining free lunch is for Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and the timber giveaway is for Washington liberal Maria Cantwell. If Democrats had kept their previous campaign pledges, none of these additional bribes would be necessary. At least a dozen Democrats have campaigned in the past for reform or repeal of the estate tax, including New York's Hillary Rodham Clinton. But somehow when it comes time to be counted, they always find an excuse to vote no. Earlier this year, all but four Democrats voted to defeat repeal, saying they preferred a more modest cut. But when a compromise was offered to a top rate of 30% from today's 46%, they opposed that too. Now that the GOP has compromised one more time, Democrats are again saying no even if it means killing their allegedly prized goal of raising the minimum wage. The latest compromise is already more than we'd prefer to see. The estate tax would survive, rather than dying for good, meaning that death would continue to be a taxable event. Income already taxed once or twice would be taxed again merely because of the inevitable accident of death. While the top death tax rate would fall to 30% by 2016, if you die in the interim you'd pay as much as 40% if your estate is worth more than $25 million because the cut is phased in. The death-tax-evasion industry--lawyers and insurance companies--will also live on...... All in all, the Senate proposal would help about 90% of the family-owned businesses in America that would otherwise get clobbered by the IRS upon the death of a loved one. As Senator Clinton put it when she was running in 2000, "you ought to be able to leave your land and the bulk of your fortunes to your children and not the government." We'll soon see if she and other Democrats meant it. <<
Originally Posted By jonvn "Talk about pandering and a bunch of BS...." Right. Meanwhile, people will be losing as much as $14,000 a year in salary. But it's someone else, so that's fine.
Originally Posted By gadzuux So DB - are we to assume that you oppose the raising of the minimum wage - as this disingenous editorial does? Perhaps it's out of their deep-felt concern for "young black men who lack a high school diploma". Further - are you also in favor of repealing the estate tax? It's sometimes difficult to discern your true intent because you don't actually declare your cards, but instead just post links to slanted and poorly written editorials that mask their true point.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"Talk about pandering and a bunch of BS...." Right. Meanwhile, people will be losing as much as $14,000 a year in salary. But it's someone else, so that's fine. < that $14,000 already has been exposed as a severly inflated number here, but let's just skip over that, it sounds better this way
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, it does sound better. OK, how about this: Will people's wages be cut? Will they make less money? Now, are these people at the top end or the bottom end of the financial ladder? Will local laws designed for local conditions be bypassed so a federally uniform and lower standard can be applied? I think none of this is good.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^ leaving out the fact that the restaurant owners are the final arbiters, and can still choose to pay what they want. The ones that do should get the better servers..right ? I hear what you're saying, and I agree the potential for impact is all at the lower end of the economic scale - although $22 / hour at one restaurant for a wait staff job is approx $44,000 per year full time - and although I know that is an exception not likely the norm - that is more than we pay new teachers / fireman / policemen etc in most places....
Originally Posted By jonvn "leaving out the fact that the restaurant owners are the final arbiters" They are not really the final arbiters. They don't have the right to pay less than the law allows, for example. And the reason that minimum wage law is there in the first place is because employers would probably not even be paying that if they didn't have to. "that is more than we pay new teachers / fireman / policemen etc in most places...." Yes. The thing is that $44,000 a year won't get you a place to live in San Francisco.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Won't get you one in the western suburbs of Chicago either - what's your point. right , wrong or indifferent, yes th epersonmay have to travel a distance to get there.. this is not about housing prices..and affordablity. Not every job is going to pay for a home in the area one works -- <<They are not really the final arbiters. They don't have the right to pay less than the law allows, for example< but they have every right to pay more...in my area they do pay more for the quality service they want - doubtful anyone is making minimum wage or else they would have a heck of a time getting workers here. I remember talking to the gentleman who stared Au Bon Pain sandwhich shopsin the northeast. He couldn;t get workers there that could deal with the more upscale crowds he wanted to attract...so he decided to pay double the min wage to start, with opportunites to earn more depending on responsibilities - and he even bused people in from outlying areas as the places he opened his shops that many people still wouldnt take those jobs -- so there are business models for this out there In downtown Chicago the square footage I have where I live would be $2M - 43m dollars-- everyone that works there sure as heck can;t afford that. it's why people go to school for better jobs etc..
Originally Posted By jonvn "what's your point" The point is that local areas that need to have passed what they have called living wage ordinances that require employers to pay enough money to their employees for basic living. This law would supercede that, and make it impossible for people in lower paying jobs to live in the area. As a conservative, it would be reasonable to consider this intrusion by the federal government into local decisions on the matter to be obtrusive and counter-productive.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <As a conservative, it would be reasonable to consider this intrusion by the federal government into local decisions on the matter to be obtrusive and counter-productive< believe it or not this part of the discussion I do agree with, I am not for larger fed government...I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn that it 'forces' resraurants to pay less, and that the actual impact is anywhere near $14,000 per year based on all the facts presented...but as a moderage GOP I agree with the intrusion part..I wish it had never been attached to the bill... My other part of this howeve then is should the federal government be responsbile for the increase in minimum wage also then ? People can't have it both ways....the increase to $7.25 is coing from them also and represents a 40% increase...yet no on eis complainng about that. Either the feds are a part of this process or they are not..but people can't pick and choose. Also then if a local municipality raises the min wage too far and many business go under...they should come whining to the feds so the rest of the country can bail them out with adi for decisions they made. This is a double edge sword. Not fair to come to the rest of the country and say we screwed up - we now have an unemployment rate of 25% because the businesses couldn't afford to pay the wages we set and many closed - please take money from other regions and help us out....agreed ?
Originally Posted By jonvn "My other part of this howeve then is should the federal government be responsbile for the increase in minimum wage also then?" I think they should be in the business of setting minimum standards on things, as part of interstate commerce. Beyond that, they should let states do what they want.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^ not sure I clearly understand so I want to make surebefore I respond - setting mimimum standards on what ? Can't be wages because that's what they did and are getting hit on it...no if you are talking about like the FDA setting standards on quality of meats / labeling - and things that affect the populace who moves across the country - then I would be in agreement with you-- but again people who make decisions as states can't comeback and look for bailouts on poor decisions they made... responding to natural disasters etc - of course would be a national role - although the state needs to coordinate also...
Originally Posted By jonvn What I mean is that they should be in the business of setting national minimum standards on things that affect interstate commerce, which minimum wage would fall under. The reason for that is because there is a national poverty level in this country, and wages regardng that would be something done at the federal level. With regards to bailouts, sometimes that's going to happen. You can't let a part of the country fall into ruin. The federal government should act as a safety net in those sorts of cases. And of course, coordinating multi-state and federal response in times of disaster.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <With regards to bailouts, sometimes that's going to happen. You can't let a part of the country fall into ruin. The federal government should act as a safety net in those sorts of cases.< see that's the slippery slope - you want them out of all decision making - like they just did here, but want them to be a safety net if a city like SF screws up..I hardly see why I as someone in another part of the country want to give SF free reign to do as they please without any interference, but then have to bail them out if their decisions are lousy. So if I disagree with a $7 /hr wage guarantee plus tips but you want to pass it, I am supposed to help out if it all goes in the tank ? Not seeing the connect there... they reset the minimum wage for non tip earning people and that is OK- but when they reset the tip earners because they have a large portion of their salary others do not get...then that is not okay. I just don't see how you trust them on one calc and not on the other..can;t pick and choose which ones someone likes... they're either in that business or they're not..
Originally Posted By jonvn "you want them out of all decision making - like they just did here, but want them to be a safety net if a city like SF screws up.." Yes, otherwise you end up with pockets in this country that end up like the third world. or New Orleans. "So if I disagree with a $7 /hr wage guarantee plus tips but you want to pass it, I am supposed to help out if it all goes in the tank ?" The idea is that you set minimum national standards. Local governments may exceed those standards if they wish. Depending on the situation, the federal government can be asked to bail them out of something, and may require the local municipality to then do something in order to receive the bail out. That seems to me to be the most reasonable.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 so you want to feds to have no authority to override the locals, but always be accountable for the results -- I am missing how that correlation works.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^^ to me that does not seem reasonable as you give absolute power to the local government, then other people across the country to bail them out if/when they screw up...I do not agree...
Originally Posted By jonvn "to me that does not seem reasonable as you give absolute power to the local government, then other people across the country to bail them out if/when they screw up...I do not agree..." Screw up how? Doing what?
