Wednesday's Theme (Economic news): Affects of the minimum wage projections on the middle class: it DECREASES wages for the vast majority of all (more than the poor)

Editor's notes:  According to the CBO conclusions (below),  will see the 10.10 minimum wage increase and benefit 1.3 million folks currently earning minimum wage incomes (3% x 45 million).  At the same time,  another half million will be harmed,  dropped from current job projections,  according to the CBO.  

Of the total 19 billion dollars in additional income (2 + 5 + 12 = 19 billion - see below), 2 billion will come from the wage increases and 17 billion will be taken from those making 72,000 and more, proving, of course,  my claim that Obama has targeted the working middle class in his rush to income/wealth redistribution and not [just] the One Percenters [if at all].  

From the CBO  (all parties listed below are middle class.  at the top,  you have those who earn $72,000 a years BEFORE THEIR 40% OVERALL TAX BURDEN,  and $12,000 per year (individual "poverty" level.  No one in the middle class are "rich,"  but most are treated as rich,  if their income actually more than $50,000 per year* ~ blog editor).  

Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).

Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. 

About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.

Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

______________________

*  My "$50,000" number comes from the fact that those individuals earning $50,000 or more per year,  are not eligible for any ObamaCare subsidies  -  meaning,  of course,  that they have been targeted by this Administration for wealth redistribution.  

Obama's theory of redistributive fairness is more important than a financial program that increases the nation's coffers.

<<<<<  Four years later,  Obama is talking about the very same thing - taxing the rich AND 100 million of the Middle Class,  not because it balances the books,  but only because "it is the fair thing to do."  And this is why his plan has been rejected by his own party.  WithObama,  fiscal responsibility is pitted against "fairness. "


In this clip (dated April 6, 2008),  Obama makes it clear that he does not care that lowering dividend taxes actually increases revenues [and increased revenues are critical to a balanced budget].  He makes it clear in this 2008 debate with Hillary,  that being "fair" is more important to him than bringing in increased revenues.  

More than this,  while he is telling us,  today,  that his "tax the rich" scheme only effects 3% of the nation's wage earners,  we learn from this debate that a full 100 million American ADULT investors would be effected by his increased dividend tax.  In other words,  he is talking about taxing the Middle Class, big time !!   Again,  understand that he does not care if the tax brings in increased revenues,  "it is the fair thing to do."