I can only see the consequences that the super rich will have less money stashed away from taxation and the "freed" money helps stimulate the economy.
Bill Clinton’s Clintonomics resulted in a “surplus”, which he was going to apply toward reducing the national debt and use the resulting interest savings for social services, such as education.
Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration
The economic policies of Bill Clinton, referred to by some as Clintonomics (a portmanteau of "Clinton" and "economics"), encapsulates the economic policies of United States President Bill Clinton that were implemented during his presidency, which lasted from January 1993 to January 2001.
President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from the fiscal year 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001
… don’t worry. I don’t consider your post pointless just because you didn’t mention “minimum wage” ?
But it helps point out that if you want to help the economy, help the people, “Minimum Wage” cannot be a one-liner tucked behind some other legislation.
mrmhead said; One could offer views of the impact a minimum wage hike could impose. It would be up to you to decide if those consequences outweigh the benefits that you see.
And every person has a unique point of view on the weight of the benefits and consequences.
You cannot argue that there are no consequences. No matter how many empty denials you throw out there.
… unless you’re missing something.
I merely observed that placing an additional financial burden on the top 10% income earners does not have any negative consequences. Most of their wealth is non-productive. That’s why it is called “unearned income” . No one had to work for it, yet it is taxed at a lower rate than “earned income”.
Raising taxes on the rich or raising minimum wage for the poor has no appreciable negative effect on most large employers, but it certainly stimulates the economy and demand for goods and services, which in turn benefits large and small businesses.
AFAIK, this was the reasoning behind the Clintonomics and it worked spectacularly well. Of course when Bush followed Clinton he immediately took the surplus and instead of applying it to the national debt, he issued a tax reduction which always benefits the wealthiest and promptly drove the economy down again until the great financial disaster.
Mr. DeVol continues his mischaracterizations by stating that President Bush had a surplus that President Obama used up,. This is false. Bush had a surplus budget because President Clinton handed him a large surplus. During the eight years of the Bush presidency, Bush squandered this surplus with tax cuts mainly for the wealthy and two dubious wars. The national debt and deficit shot through the roof.
When Bush left office the national deficit was one trillion dollars a year. The national debt grew under President Obama because of the Bush tax cuts and wars that Obama inherited. President Obama actually cut the national deficit by 50 percent.
I think it could be stand alone and probably should be. We’d know then who wants Big Business and Corporations to have money, but nobody else that way and can vote them out of office. To be honest, I think it will be Repugs who refuse to vote for it- many of the Repugs, if not almost all of them.
mrmhad said; Did Clintonomics raise the minimum wage? I did a search in the wiki and didn’t find it.
Yes, the Clinton admin did indeed raise the minimum wage by $ .90 p/hr. which was a major raise at that time.
And much more; the Clinton admin was very labor friendly and it yielded very positive results for the national economy. See the link to get an idea of the full scope;
Creating Better Jobs
Increased the Minimum Wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour -- increasing wages for 10 million. For an average full-time minimum wage worker this amounts to a $1,800 raise. President Clinton also proposed an additional minimum wage increase in 1998.
Question about Clintonomics and minimum wage was a simple, honest question. I did not know. I do now. Thank you
I agree that raising the minimum wage will have little impact on the large corporations. It is the small business owner that is running on thin margins and no tax abatement deals from the city that will be hit harder.
I’d bet there is a larger percentage of employees in small businesses close to the minimum wage, than there is in the large corporations.
“I agree that raising the minimum wage will have little impact on the large corporations. It is the small business owner that is running on thin margins and no tax abatement deals from the city that will be hit harder.”
Rent? How much rent is eating up profits? Should they be allowed to pay1 dollar per hour in wages just to survive? Whats your floor level in wages?