Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (59370)	9/25/2000 12:41:40 PM
From: flatsville	Respond to of 99985

OT-- <<<EIC uses the national median income as its basis. You tell me how applicable that is to someone in Oklahoma City or Cedar Rapids versus someone living in New Jersey or Orlando.<<< I think EIC is a ineffective measure to address poverty. If employers paid a living wage (which where implemented and required is adjusted to local economic conditions) this would address those geographical disparities. Off the books employment is a non-issue here. It doesn't figure into a filer's claim towards EIC because it is undocumented income (no W2, no 1099 and they'd be insane to claim off-the books as Sched. C income because they would then owe SE taxes on the income and it would be a wash.) Under a living wage system there would always be employers who try to circumvent the wage laws just as there is now under minimum wage. >>>It's more small business welfare and probably subsidizes businesses that utilize day laborers, restaurants, and others who can pay below minimum wage legally or illegally.<<< OK let's call it "Business Welfare" even though some of those restaurants are franchised and some of the franchised stores are owned by publicly traded parent corporations and some of those constructions concerns are sub-contractors to multi-billion dollar construction corporations.