Letter: Wages should be adequate alone
2008 -- Stock photo of an old-fashioned gold watch resting on a Benjamin Franklin, $100, one hundred dollar bill. Photo credit: istock Credit: ISTOCK/
Your letter writer states that a minimum-wage increase is not necessary because most minimum-wage earners are not heads of households, and those who are receive tax credits and subsidies, which effectively pay them $25 per hour ["Minimum-wage increases destroy jobs," Jan. 19].
This means that heads of households who earn the minimum wage are receiving $17.75 per hour from the government -- a situation that seems to be OK with the letter writer. I thought that Republicans were against government payouts that keep people on "the dole."
If the minimum wage were increased, the government would not have to pay an array of subsidies to heads of households each month and would, therefore, be able to reduce taxes.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that the current minimum wage is adequate and then provide the government supports necessary to keep people at the poverty level. Taxpayers have to pay for those supports. Wouldn't it be better if businesses paid an adequate wage in the first place?
Louis Farbstein, Merrick
