Jonathan Blake
tweeted about the latest bad idea to come from Minnesota ’s political charity machine: "The Bad Boss
Tax".
In this instance a “bad” boss is one that hires lots of
low-wage workers: workers who also receive government benefits like food stamps
or subsidies for healthcare, housing, or energy costs. Hiring workers who also receive government
benefits in some form is said to be taking advantage of the taxpayer.
Wal-Mart appears to be the specific target of this campaign. But what about the chicken/egg argument? By hiring those on public benefit, isn't Wal-Mart supplementing their household income and subsidizing the taxpayer?
According to the supporters of the Bad Boss Tax, the employer is supposed to pay such a high wage that the employee would not qualify for any government benefit. If not, the employer will have to pay hefty fines for hiring the dependent.
Wal-Mart appears to be the specific target of this campaign. But what about the chicken/egg argument? By hiring those on public benefit, isn't Wal-Mart supplementing their household income and subsidizing the taxpayer?
According to the supporters of the Bad Boss Tax, the employer is supposed to pay such a high wage that the employee would not qualify for any government benefit. If not, the employer will have to pay hefty fines for hiring the dependent.
That’s a tall order, given that most
Americans now receive some form of government benefit.
TakeAction
Minnesota is pushing the idea, which, apparently will be introduced as a
bill in the state legislature next year.
As Blake pointed out, TakeAction doesn’t seem to have thought this idea
through.
Beyond the obvious—employers will avoid hiring those on
public benefit—the hardest hit employers by such a law are those businesses and
charities that specialize in hiring the disabled, the homeless, and those
giving the poor and unskilled a leg up.
Do we really want to discourage hiring those at the bottom of the ladder
with fines and penalties?
