What the heck do you do if you're a single parent on minimum wage?

[Bill McBlueState]

The federal minimum wage goes up to $6.55 per hour today. It's a step in the right direction, but...

If you're lucky enough to work 40 hours a week, the new minimum wage will net you $1135 per month, before deductions.

The federal poverty level for a household of 1 is $867 per month.
The federal poverty level for a household of 2 is $1167 per month.
(PDF source)

So if it's just yourself, a full-time minimum-wage job puts you at 130% of the poverty level. Not good by any stretch.

Single parents are below the poverty level: 97% for one kid, lower for more. Plus you're going to have to find child care. We need to revive the apparently old-fashioned principle that having a job should be a ticket out of poverty.

[FirstLight]

1. THere is such a thing as a LIVING wage..

and most single parents are NOT making even close!

check out the movie "waging a Living" it was available through PBS last year, I am sure you could google it. I belong to a Parent Advocacy group here in my town and we did a screening of this movie and invited all the local business owners , etc to watch...don't know if it made much of a difference, but I would like to think it started the conversation.

I am a single mom of 3 and my wages barely can buy us gas and food, much less pay the utilties. If my folks didn;t help out now & then, we'd be much worse off...but forget about paying doewn my student loan or repairing the credit that my exhusband damaged... I am only able to concentrate on survival at this point.

so, what do you do?
cry alot
pray alot
rely on the kindness of family and church members
...hope for things to change sooner rather than later.
because for many of us, the ship is sinking fast

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

2. its not only the minimun wage jobs, it is the multitude of low paying

crap jobs that abound these days.

In my area, I could get 15 jobs (or more) between my home and the local mall. They are all of the pet smart, target, walmart mcjob variety. I laugh when I see the ads for workers, they will advertise a "competitive wage", which means 25 cents more an hour than minimum wage. Around here a good paying job is one that pays $10.00 an hour, or approx $21,000 a year. Try living on $21,000 a year. The only livable wage jobs are working for the government or the school districts or the hospitals. And yet we have union fireman up here advocating for bush and the repubs. - go figure, I sure can't wrap my mind around that.

I cringe when I see our leaders promoting "job creation". No should be talking about "jobs" unless the words living wage is included.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

3. Wages wouldn't be a problem if the government supplemented them

Actually many economists have suggested this as a better solution than driving up the minimum wage to really high livable levels. It may be that not all employers can afford to cover all of their employees' living expenses in exchange for 40 hours of labor per week. If the market wages fall below livability level the government should simply step in and pay extra hourly pay. If you make only $7/hr and work full time, for example, you might get $2.50 from the government for every hour you work. Hour-based wage supplements are different than aggregate income supplements because you get more if you work more hours at the same crappy wage, preserving incentives for hard work.

The wage supplements would be financed by taxes on the rich. In contrast, minimum wage increases are financed on the backs of many small businesses (and to some extent, their customers). So a wage-supplement system would have a more equalizing effect in terms of income distribution.

[Obamanaut]

4. Wage supplement system?

Another income redistribution plan? I am not one of “the rich”, but is it REALLY reasonable to expect “the rich” to pay an hourly wage to people who don’t work for them?

Minimum wage jobs are not, and probably never were, intended to pay enough upon which to raise a family. They are more like entry positions, and a person taking one of them should expect to accrue periodic pay increases based on merit or move on to another position where such advances are possible - leaving the minimum wage job vacant for another new entrant into the work force.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

<snip>The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.<snip>

Check out that last sentence. And you want to charge them yet another fee? Who is gonna pay it when “the rich” decide to take their money and go someplace else?

[Bill McBlueState]

5. You should think less about how minimum wage jobs are "intended"

and what minimum wage workers should "expect."

The reality is that many minimum-wage or near-minimum-wage workers are supporting families, and they certainly aren't calmly expecting a reasonable raise or better job offer to come prancing along.

People should pay more attention to the reality on the ground and less attention to the theoretical expectations of right-wing anti-tax foundations.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

6. This sounds like a "free enterprise" troll

So usnret88, what do you have to say about millions of families working full time and still living in poverty because they can't find a good paying job? Will tax cuts and deregulation fix everything for them? Why do you complain about the tax burden on the rich when it is the lowest it has been in 30 years?

[Obamanaut]

7. I think this.

If you’ll read the link, it appears that the top earner tax burden has gone up (total paid of 39.9% is higher than 36.9%, is it not?.) And 43 million returns show no tax burden at all.

The emphasis in the following cites from the link previously provided is my own.

<snip>This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.<snip>


<snip>The IRS data below include all of the 135.7 million tax returns filed in 2006 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that in 2006, 92.7 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005, but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, <snip>

[bobbolink]

11. I don't know where you get your figures, but everything I've seen points to the exact opposite.

The rich USED to be taxed in the 90% bracket, and you know what? They still had their yachts and their mansions all over the landscape.

Not one of them starved.

[Obamanaut]

12. The link is in post 4. It's an interesting read. Check it out. I don't

understand why there is so much hatred for "the rich." There are terms bandied about such as "less fortunate" and "more fortunate" as if the whole thing is determined by a dice roll. I think it is generally diligence and hard work, good investments, and intelligence. There are some exceptions where wealth is inherited, but one of the ancestors had those items in the previous sentence.

Then there is wealth envy, where the "less fortunate" suggest that "the rich" aren't paying their fare share when in reality the largest portion of the tax burden falls upon them. Look in the link provided to see how many millions have no tax burden at all.

Look around at some of the "less fortunate", and you will see some of the attributes that keeps them there. Not much income, but there is enough to go up in smoke at several dollars per pack. Many times the kids can be seen wearing designer/name brand athletic shoes when something from a family shoe store will cover the feet just as well. I used to manage just such a store in a small town where a large portion of the population was at or below the poverty level. Parents bought their shoes from me, while the kids had the expensive ones. Not all are this way, and I do not mean to imply that they are - but they do exist.

And to answer your question as to where my information comes from, I got it from this link, as seen in post 4 http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

[bobbolink]

13. "I think it is generally diligence and hard work, good investments, and intel

And right there is where you are showing your true colors.

Those are RW talking points, right down the line.

I suspect your link is RW think tank crap, which has been shown to be lies, and that's why I'm not interested in your "figures".

Take your blame game and peddle it somewhere else, because nobody here is buying.

You may think you have intelligence, but the ignorance is showing, and I hope the coming downfall of this country teaches you a thing or two firsthand.

Good bye.

[Obamanaut]

14. Well now aren't I the chastened one. I've learned a most valuable

lesson. If one doesn't agree with the numbers or like the source, disregard them. I suggest you add me to your ignore list, take two aspirins, and you'll feel better.

[Naturyl]

18. I don't know if Bobo will take your suggestion...

...But I just might. Bobo is absolutely right to point out that ascribing poverty to a lack of diligence, intelligence, or other positive character qualities is a strictly a right-wing approach. Progressives don't do it and people who do it aren't progressive, no matter what they might imagine. As for the issue of intelligence in particular, I am about as poor as an American can be without being homeless, and I would be more than happy to sit down with you and take any kind of standardized test you like. I'd bet the 63 cents I have in my pocket the results will be thoroughly in my favor.

So peddle that foul garbage on Free Republic where it belongs, please.

[Obamanaut]

19. You're probably correct thinking 'Bobo" might not take the

suggestion from one who "...may think you have intelligence, but the ignorance is showing..." The attributes listed were A, B, AND C, not OR C.

You keep busy taking your standardized tests, but I'd put my 63 cents on the Oprahs, Buffets, and Gateses of the world who do more than that.

And two more aspirins bite the dust.

[Naturyl]

20. Hehe, nice...

Way to show your true colors. Unfavorably compared to the filthy rich - oh, boo-hoo... I might be terribly hurt if I hadn't heard it about 30 million times from right-wingers.

Thanks for the go-ahead on the tests. In the same spirit, you keep chugging down those aspirin and maybe the headache you get from spouting Hannity talking points might subside a bit. And hey, if not, at the very least you can take comfort in the fact that you're supporting the Bayer corporation, which I'm sure is owned and managed by the kind of entrepreneurial go-getters you seem to admire so much.

As for your 63 cents, if you're putting it on the "Oprahs, Buffets, and Gateses" of the world who have put planet Earth on social, political, spiritual, and environmental life support (as did the Carnegies, Rockefellers, and Rothschilds before them), best of luck with that. May you see a return on your investment in precisely the manner you deserve.

[patriotvoice]

21. Those attributes can leave you generally well off...

or they can leave you poor. When you generally ascribe positive attributes to the "more fortunate" you generally ascribe negative attributes to the "less fortunate;" in this case, one may infer you mean the "less fortunate" are wandering, lazy, bad investors, and dumb. Certainly some "less" fortunate are, just as some "more" fortunate are too.

Nonetheless, we have been looking at this problem from the income side for over 40 years. Instead of looking at setting minimum incomes, I suggest we also look at setting maximum costs. In other words, there is:
* a maximum health care cost
* a maximum housing cost
* a maximum utilities cost
* a maximum grocery cost
* a tax on consumption (a VAT)
* a significant reduction in military spending

It begins with health care. Every single person pays a single monthly payment, based on age (younger pay more) and a health index (healthier pay more). Think of it as a "lifetime health savings plan" -- when you are young and able, you pay more for your own "rainy" days. This is collected at the federal level. The government oversees medical costs and pays the institutions the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into a medical research fund; any shortfall is paid from VAT funding.

It then moves to housing. Everyone who opts for a HUD managed apartment, loft, or home pays a maximum amount each month based on housing grade. Larger units cost more. Lower density units cost more. Small, high density units are the most affordable. The majority of the payment goes toward purchasing equity in the unit; the balance goes to administrative overhead. Should you move out, the government sends you a cheque for the equity you have invested in your home, plus interest earned on your money. This is managed at the federal level. The government oversees housing costs (as they do now for Sec. 8) and pays the housing owners the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into an housing improvement fund; any shortfall is paid from VAT fund.

It then moves to utilities. Every single person pays a maximum monthly bill based on consumption tiers. Your consumption is measured and you are moved up or down in the tiers based on yearly consumption average. This is managed and collected at the state level. It is very similar to the current standard-rate utilities plan, where you pay a fixed amount each month regardless of your usage. The state government oversees utility costs (as they do now) and pays utility providers the difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into an infrastructure improvement fund; any shortfall is paid from VAT funding.

It then moves to groceries. Every one pays a maximum amount for each unit (pound, ounce, etc) of raw ingredients and necessities: bread, milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables. Prices are set and managed at the state level. The state government oversees food costs and pays stores difference between actual cost and paid. Any surplus is paid into infrastructure (roadway, railway) improvement and farm-subsidy fund; any shortfall is paid from VAT funding.

Now VAT. The basic idea is that the less "necessary" something is, the more you are taxed for it. Thus, raw ingredients (flour, sugar, etc) and necessities (bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, eggs) are not taxed. Bicycles and scooters are not taxed. School supplies are not taxed. Gasoline and fuel efficient vehicles are taxed moderately (5%). Electronics and gas guzzlers are taxed heavily (15%).

Finally, the military. We cannot afford to continue operating bases in nearly every country in the world. Theaters of operations must be scaled back. Transfer soldiers from foreign posts to state-side active duty in the National or Coast Guard.

[sandnsea]

22. If owners paid the workers instead of the stockholders

Then the people who actually do the work would be rich and the stockholders would have to get a job. That's my idea of income redistribution.

[Obamanaut]

23. A lot of the stockholders already have jobs. They are teachers,

firemen, policemen, municipal workers, etc and their pension funds have been invested. They may even be other workers with 401K investments. What about them? Many stockholders are not tanned beach dwellers sipping iced beverages while the mainstream toils.

[sandnsea]

24. They would do far better

if their savings weren't at the mercy of the elite too.

[Obamanaut]

25. So, you think the people would be better off if their pension

plans went straight to them rather than being invested in various stocks, mutual funds, etc?

That almost sounds like you are in favor of privatizing social security - something that many don't seem to like.

Which is it? Something of both?

[bobbolink]

10. In my understanding, that's what other countries do.

In her book, Nickel And Dimed Barbara Ehrenreich talks about how capitalism must have at least 4% unemployment to keep from having inflation. As she says, those 4% are doing the nation a service by being unemployed, and should be compensated justly.

That's a start in the way we need to be looking at this.

You mention economists... do you have anything handy to point us to, or could you write more on this?

I think this deserves it's own thread, and thanks for bringing it up!

[Naturyl]

8. Being an American citizen should be a ticket out of poverty

Period. But I do agree that no working person should have to remain poor - it makes no sense even by less liberal standards than my own.

[bobbolink]

9. You become homeless and have your kids taken away.

Next question...?

[bobbolink]

15. It looks like once again the RW won by shutting us up.

[Naturyl]

16. Orwell knew that the best way to silence undesirable viewpoints...

...is to make certain thoughts "unthinkable." Every American knows that poverty and homelessness exist, but the thought of there being anything but band-aid solutions simply does not occur. Something like a guaranteed minimum income, which ends poverty instantly and permanently, is never even considered. The right wing has done its work well in making the real solutions off-limits to "sane" people.

That's why sometimes I thank my lucky stars that I'm crazy.

[bobbolink]

17. So, do you think homelessness is "unthinkable" to most "progressives"?

You may feel like I"m trying to just pester you, but this is something that has boiled in me for years now, and the more I see of it, the angrier I get, and NEED to find what is behind this blocking out of people in pain by people who pride themselves on being so "aware".

"Something like a guaranteed minimum income, which ends poverty instantly and permanently, is never even considered. "

That's exactly what our last liberal president, Richard Outhouse Nixon proposed. He wanted EVERYONE to receive a sustainable living, including those of us unable to work, which "liberals" today toss out the window. We don't count.

"That's why sometimes I thank my lucky stars that I'm crazy."

Glad to meet ya.... I KNEW there was something I liked about you! :hi: :rofl: :hi: