How about eliminating the payroll tax cap to fund expanding SNAP and other programs?

[Kaleva]

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Especially for those who make minimum wage or less.

This would require a major modification of our SS system but it's do-able.

In 2010, there were about 3,167,000 wage earners age 19 and older who made minimum wage or less. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and a person working full time at that wage grosses about $15,000 a year and 6.2% of that comes out to $930.

The entire food stamp program (SNAP) cost 78 billion in 2012. Eliminating the cap would, in some estimates, generate about $80 billion in revenue. More then enough to cover current SNAP costs and with enough left over to ensure that every person working at minimum wage or less gets at least $50 a month in SNAP benefits (my own monthly food budget is $120). Of those 3,167,000 who are currently getting SNAP, such as those with families, the money would be added to their benefit.

This would reduce the federal deficit by close to $80 billion a year, could be viewed as an increase in the minimum wage without added cost to the employer and one report I saw said that every SNAP dollar spent generates about $1.82 in local economic activity so it could also be considered an economic stimulus package.

The well off failed to generate new jobs under the Bush tax cuts. With failure, there must be consequences. They can pay for this.

[Cobalt Violet]

1. I would like them to raise the minimum wage.

I want more cash not food stamps. $50 a month in not enough.

[TexasBushwhacker]

2. No, payroll taxes should be for Social Security and Medicare only

They need to raise the minimum wage yesterday. If it kept up with inflation it would be about $10.50. The way it's subsidized now is with earned income credit, but that's basically for people with children. Granted, EITC replaced old fashioned check in the mail welfare, but it makes all the taxpayers subsidize low wage workers instead of their employers paying, which is really who should foot the bill. Granted Walmart is the biggest employer in the country, but because the pay so low and don't offer affordable benefits, their employees are the number one recipients of food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. $2.6 Billion worth per year. Since Walmart's profits were about $15.6 Billion, I think they owe the American taxpayers a big fat check. It's not like they can't afford it.

[Kaleva]

3. Adequete food could be considered "Social Security"

That every working person who makes minimum wage or less will get at least a minimum amount to pay for food.

Your comment:

"...but it makes all the taxpayers subsidize low wage workers instead of their employers paying, which is really who should foot the bill."

What I propose doesn't affect all taxpayers or wage earners. Just those who make more then the the current cap. One could consider using some of the 80 billion in reduced spending to be applied to offset the cost in allowing those aged 55 and older who are still working so they can buy into Medicare.

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. No, we still don't need to transfer more costs to the taxpayers

even taxpayers at the high end. We need to drastically raise or eliminate the cap on Social Security to make Social Security more stable for generations to come. As it stands right now they can only pay the current benefit levels for the next 20 to 25 years. After that they will have to reduce benefits by 25% if they don't do something to raise more revenue. Keep payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare only.

Again, what do you have against employers paying a living wage? If people were earning decent wages instead of depending on benefits like SNAP and EITC, they wouldn't be looked down upon as the "47%".

[Kaleva]

8. What do you consider to be a "living wage"?

And "living wage" varies greatly from one part of the country to the next and how many, if any, dependents there are. A single person can much more easily live on $10.50 an hour then a single mother with two dependent children could.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

[TexasBushwhacker]

9. And I don't think someone should expect to support children on a minimum wage job

She should be getting child support from the father(s) or SSI if the father is dead. Two children gets her about $4K in EITC and another $2K child tax credit, at least. That's adding $6K to her annual income, tax free, paid for the taxpayers. I don't get EITC. I don't get child tax credits. I'm single with no kids. I get no breaks at all.

[JVS]

4. That's not a logical trade. Both are things we support and republicans oppose..

We support lifting the cap, we support funding snap. Republicans oppose both. Your proposal is like me saying that I'll take your Mickey Mantle card if you also include a Ted Williams card.

A trade involves some give and take. Such as increasing minimum wage in exchange for tightening requirements (and funding for SNAP), or alternatively we could offer to lower minimum wage in exchange for more comprehensive benefits for the poor vial SNAP and Medicaid, which is kind of what we already do by providing benefits that feed and thus subsidize the low wage workforce. I'm not endorsing these proposals, just using them as examples of a trade-off.

[Kaleva]

6. I wasn't thinking about dealing with Republicans

I just thought it'd be a goal Democrats have. But the way I wrote the title, I can see why one might assume I was offering an exchange with Republicans so I'll edit it.

[HiPointDem]

5. how about raising the minimum wage. jobs, not more snoopy charity.