Wayne County employees might work for $5.00 an hour!

**emu steve** · July-17-15, 09:49 AM

Nope. "EMU Steve" is a 'straw man' perhaps, 25, single, no dependents, etc.

If "EMU Steve" was married with children and working for $8.10, instead of doing his income tax, I'd be praying a novena for him and his family.

Actually by choosing 'Single, not head of household' I have chosen to give our theoretical guy, EMU Steve, the highest tax burden [[given his income level)

permissible by law...

**downtownguy** · July-17-15, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by emu steve

I find this whole story poppy cock.

Snow plow drivers don't [[won't) work for the min. wage.

And to extend B'Guy's comment: A typical min. wage person's federal income tax levy is probably a quarter or fifty cents an hour [[maybe a nickel or less) depending.

I haven't kept up with this stuff, but I'd guess many min. wage workers pay zero federal income tax. Doesn't the personal exemption and standard deduction wipe out say close to 10K of gross income for a single person [[I haven't kept up with these things. Turbo Tax does my 'thinking'.)

I think you're confusing what a minimum wage worker pays versus the effective tax rate for Mike Ilitch.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-17-15, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by emu steve

Nope. "EMU Steve" is a 'straw man' perhaps, 25, single, no dependents, etc.

If "EMU Steve" was married with children and working for $8.10, instead of doing his income tax, I'd be praying a novena for him and his family.

Actually by choosing 'Single, not head of household' I have chosen to give our theoretical guy, EMU Steve, the highest tax burden [[given his income level)

permissible by law...

Will still be interesting to see the 'maximum' burden.

I do think that what's missing in the min wage debate is some perspective. Most MW workers are not head of household. Nor are they usually the primary breadwinner.

From the NYTimes:

Their earnings are a big part of their family budgets. The average worker in this group brings home half of his or her household’s earnings; 19 percent of those who would get the raise are sole earners. Parents who would benefit from the increase bring home an even larger share of their families’ earnings: 60 percent.

19% are sole earners. Thus 81% are contributors to the families income.

Also from the Times:

One in eight lives in a high-income household. About 12 percent of those who would gain from an increase to $10.10 live in households with incomes above $100,000. This group highlights the fact that the minimum wage is not nearly as well targeted toward poverty reduction as the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy whose receipt, unlike the minimum wage, is predicated on family income.

12% are high-income earners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/up...abt=0002&abg=0

**jackie5275** · July-18-15, 11:55 AM

Now that you folks have debated the tax calculation, please go back and reread the story. Evans is proposing a slew of compensation changes to County employees, increased health costs, increased pension contributions, a pay cut, changes in holidays and overtime rules, etc. Martin has calculated that if all these changes take place, after they're implemented, plus tax deductions, the average worker will have a take home pay equivalent of $5.65 an hour.

**emu steve** · July-18-15, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

Now that you folks have debated the tax calculation, please go back and reread the story. Evans is proposing a slew of compensation changes to County employees, increased health costs, increased pension contributions, a pay cut, changes in holidays and overtime rules, etc. Martin has calculated that if all these changes take place, after they're implemented, plus tax deductions, the average worker will have a take home pay equivalent of $5.65 an hour.

Actually there are a couple of points here raised in this thread:

1). We have been dancing around the issue of take home pay. Is it after taxes? After taxes plus other deductions, such as health insurance, etc. etc.

2). And does anyone believe that anyone doing the job referenced is really a min. wage employee?

So the deductions are more than simply taxes and the salary is more than the min. wage.

There are a lot of 'numbers' we do not know...

**jackie5275** · July-18-15, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by emu steve

Actually there are a couple of points here raised in this thread:

1). We have been dancing around the issue of take home pay. Is it after taxes? After taxes plus other deductions, such as health insurance, etc. etc.

2). And does anyone believe that anyone doing the job referenced is really a min. wage employee?

So the deductions are more than simply taxes and the salary is more than the min. wage.

There are a lot of 'numbers' we do not know...

Steve, I don't know what others' definition of take home pay is, but I define it as my net wages after all deductions, taxes, health insurance, retirement contribution. That view is shared by my co-workers, including Martin. No, the person referenced by Martin makes more than minimum wage. That person makes approximately $15-!6 per hour. Now before anyone starts getting off on a "Those county employees make too much" rant, because that's not where I want to take the discussion, be advised of the information. This $5.65 an hour take home stated by Martin is an illustration of how deep the cuts Evans is proposing are. According to Martin's calculation, these changes would wipe out about 2/3 of the employee's pay in wage cuts and increased deductions. I think that what he was trying to drive home.

**hortonz** · July-18-15, 02:50 PM

Finally the people have a government that works for them and not the parasites over at Big Labor. Too bad Ontario didn't get the message because Michigan is eating their lunch and producing the kind of economic growth that makes its' citizens envious while Ontario's overpaid, unproductive public servants continue to live like princes and princesses and the province continues to rack up huge budget deficits and hemorrhage jobs and investment. Anybody who wants to get a look at life under a government controlled by government unions should cross the river. After living a coddled life for the last two decades, the folks who live off the taxpayer will get a taste of what is like in the real world: low wages, no job security, no benefits and no recourse from management's whims. You have nobody to blame but yourselves Big Labor. You didn't do a damn thing to help the average Joe and Jill when they were being downsized, outsourced or just plain ripped off by the system and you're not going to get their support now. If Big Labor really cared about the plight of American workers they would be going all-out for Bernie Sanders instead of that corporate stooge Hillary Clinton.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-18-15, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

Now that you folks have debated the tax calculation, please go back and reread the story. Evans is proposing a slew of compensation changes to County employees, increased health costs, increased pension contributions, a pay cut, changes in holidays and overtime rules, etc. Martin has calculated that if all these changes take place, after they're implemented, plus tax deductions, the average worker will have a take home pay equivalent of $5.65 an hour.

Smart man this Martin.

He's deducting income lost by not getting double-time on holidays and time-and-1/2 for overtime from regular take-home pay? And we're buying it!

Martin should run for County Executive -- except then he'd have to find a way to raise taxes to actually pay for doubletime on holiday. Boo Hoo. County employees might not get paid for not working. Abuse, I tell ya.

[[Just curious.... I wonder how much the bare-bones benefits paid to these 'minimum wage' workers is? UAW -- hourly = $19-27 -- cost to employer = $55 ish? So $30/hr. in benefits. I'll be unionized Wayne Country employees make at least $10.00 / hr. in premium benefits and pension payments that aren't to be found at McDonalds. Probably no triple, golden overtime at McDonald's either. Boo Hoo.)

**emu steve** · July-18-15, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

Steve, I don't know what others' definition of take home pay is, but I define it as my net wages after all deductions, taxes, health insurance, retirement contribution. That view is shared by my co-workers, including Martin. No, the person referenced by Martin makes more than minimum wage. That person makes approximately $15-!6 per hour. Now before anyone starts getting off on a "Those county employees make too much" rant, because that's not where I want to take the discussion, be advised of the information. This $5.65 an hour take home stated by Martin is an illustration of how deep the cuts Evans is proposing are. According to Martin's calculation, these changes would wipe out about 2/3 of the employee's pay in wage cuts and increased deductions. I think that what he was trying to drive home.

Jackie, I think you and I are in the 'same ballpark'.

Take home pay is net take home pay after required deductions.

I assume that $15 or $16 / hour is a typical pay. I hope no one here expects those County employees to work for less than McDonalds pays. $15 / hour is not a middle class wage [[I came up with 31.2K/year, which I believe is 'below average' nationally; a 'working class' wage, not 'middle class' wage).

The real issue, as Jackie indicates, is the CUMULATVE effects of a pay cut, increase in other deductions, e.g., health insurance, pension, etc.

A 5% cut in hourly wages can easily become say 10 -15% if there are significant increases in other required deductions. Health insurance costs are obviously concern for all workers.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-18-15, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by emu steve

Jackie, I think you and I are in the 'same ballpark'.

Take home pay is net take home pay after required deductions.

I assume that $15 or $16 / hour is a typical pay. I hope no one here expects those County employees to work for less than McDonalds pays. $15 / hour is not a middle class wage [[I came up with 31.2K/year, which I believe is 'below average' nationally; a 'working class' wage, not 'middle class' wage).

The real issue, as Jackie indicates, is the CUMULATVE effects of a pay cut, increase in other deductions, e.g., health insurance, pension, etc.

A 5% cut in hourly wages can easily become say 10 -15% if there are significant increases in other required deductions. Health insurance costs are obviously concern for all workers.

Steve, a problem in the analysis [[as posted) is that Mr. Martin is subtracting from the base pay wages that would not be received if the changes went into effect. To be fair, he should be including those wages that are above the stated $15/16 wage before then deducting their loss.

$15 for 2,080 hours [[standard working year) is $31,200. However this needs to be indexed up for premium and unworked hours. The actual average wage with overtime and vacation pay included could be $16, 17, or perhaps $20-25 per actual hour of work.

Martin is misleading if he's using $15 as a base -- when the employee is really receiving much more per hour.