The Fair Wage and Community Revitalization Act

[Nym90]

Clause 1.

The federal minimum wage of Atlasia shall be increased by 50 cents per hour each year for the next 4 years, until it reaches the level of $7.15/hour.

Clause 2.

The federal government shall have the authority to establish Renaissance Zones in areas that are determined to be "economically distressed". For the purposes of this act, the definition of "economically distressed" shall be as follows:

Either,

a. all counties or cities in which the Renaissance Zone will be established have an unemployment rate more than 50% higher than the national average, on average over the last 5 years;

or,

b. all counties or cities in which the Renaissance Zone will be established have a poverty rate more than 50% higher than the national average, on average over the last 5 years.

A Renaissance Zone, once established, shall entitle any newly established business within its area to have to pay no federal income tax for the first 5 years of operation.

Clause 3.

The creation of any Renaissance Zone shall be done in consult with a committee duly appointed by the Regional Government in which the Zone shall be created. The primary purpose of this committee will be to analyze the totality of costs and benefits, both quantitatively and qualitatively, of the creation of the Zone, and establish the borders of the Zone. The committee will report its findings to the public before the creation of any such Zone.

[PBrunsel]

Nothing but big spending popy cock, this will be vetoed.

These "Rennisance Zones" (or however that silly owrd is splled) reminds me of what "River Rennisance" is in Davenport, Iowa. It is city contractors fight over who gets to spend tax dollars on the next sky bridge to the Davenport River Casino, i've read all about it.

Now magnify that town of Davenport's probelms by 50 states and we have ths act.

[Nym90]

Well it's worth noting that they are tax free zones; I'm not proposing any new spending at all. It's a tax break for the businesses, not new government spending. If a business is willing to go into a distressed area, we'll not require them to pay any taxes on that business for 5 years. It will encourage businesses to move into these places.

The idea of the Renaissance Zone is one long championed by Jack Kemp, if you weren't aware.

[Gabu]

Nothing but big spending popy cock, this will be vetoed.

These "Rennisance Zones" (or however that silly owrd is splled) reminds me of what "River Rennisance" is in Davenport, Iowa. It is city contractors fight over who gets to spend tax dollars on the next sky bridge to the Davenport River Casino, i've read all about it.

Now magnify that town of Davenport's probelms by 50 states and we have ths act.

Erm, no offense, but did you read the bill?  It doesn't ask the government to spend any money at all; all that that section of the bill will do is exempt new businesses in the "Renaissance Zones" from federal income taxes for five years...

Myself, the only part I might need to research is the proposed $7.15/hour federal minimum wage; raising the minimum wage will inevitably create unemployment in the short term, so for it to be beneficial, we'll need to be sure that it'll increase overall income enough for it to compensate in the long run for those job losses.

[John Dibble]

I oppose this bill. I request my Senators do the same.

I don't think the minimum wage needs to be raised to such a level, or at all for that matter. Very few people are actually paid at the current minimum level anyways, not to mention that over half of them are teenagers, and fewer still stay at that low for long(about 2/3 rise above it in their first year).

[Keystone Phil]

The idea of the Renaissance Zone is one long championed by Jack Kemp, if you weren't aware.

I just wanted to state that I think comments like that are really unnecessary. The President stated his disapproval and just because some conservatives admire supports it doesn't mean the President will say "Oh, Kemp supported it? Nevermind. I like it."

[Nym90]

Well, he seemed not to have any idea as to what they were, so I was merely pointing out that it's not something I invented. That was the main point of my comment.

[Nym90]

I oppose this bill. I request my Senators do the same.

I don't think the minimum wage needs to be raised to such a level, or at all for that matter. Very few people are actually paid at the current minimum level anyways, not to mention that over half of them are teenagers, and fewer still stay at that low for long(about 2/3 rise above it in their first year).

I believe that 16% of the entire workforce is below the $7.15 level, at least in Michigan (Michigan is proposing raising its minimum wage by this same amount, and I remember seeing that statistic in the papers).

[Gabu]

I oppose this bill. I request my Senators do the same.

I don't think the minimum wage needs to be raised to such a level, or at all for that matter. Very few people are actually paid at the current minimum level anyways, not to mention that over half of them are teenagers, and fewer still stay at that low for long(about 2/3 rise above it in their first year).

Well, the following are, apparently, facts about the minimum wage:

1. If the minimum wage in 2001 had been worth what it was worth in 1968, the minimum wage in 2001 would have been $7.08.

2. The national median housing wage, based on each county's housing wage for a two-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent weighted by Census 2000 population estimates, is $13.87 an hour, more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.

3. According to a study by economists William J. Carrington and Bruce C. Fallick, 19.2% of workers who were finished with school spent at least half of the first eight years into their careers in jobs that paid $1.50 above the minimum wage.  Roughly 13.2% spent at least half of the first 10 years into their careers in jobs that paid $1.50 above the minimum wage.

4. According to a 1999 study by the Jerome Levy Economics Institute, the last increase in the minimum wage did not affect the overwhelming majority of small businesses.  89.1% of the small businesses surveyed said the last increase did not have an effect on their employment or hiring decisions.

I still need to do more research, but the more I look into this, the more I currently am tilting in the direction of supporting this bill.

[John Dibble]

I oppose this bill. I request my Senators do the same.

I don't think the minimum wage needs to be raised to such a level, or at all for that matter. Very few people are actually paid at the current minimum level anyways, not to mention that over half of them are teenagers, and fewer still stay at that low for long(about 2/3 rise above it in their first year).

I believe that 16% of the entire workforce is below the $7.15 level, at least in Michigan (Michigan is proposing raising its minimum wage by this same amount, and I remember seeing that statistic in the papers).

And how much of that 16% consists of teenagers who live with their parents?

Raising the minimum wage will ultimately do very little to help the poor. Read this.

EDIT - ^ you read it too Gabu.

[Moorein08]

I urge my Senators to oppose this bill!

[John Dibble]

Also of interest:

[12th Doctor]

You idea for community revitilization zones sounds a lot like Senator Al's bill.  I cannot support such an increase in the minimum wage, either.  Increases in Minimum Wage cause an increase in prices and, thus, it is rather self defeating.

[Sam Spade]

Based on my experience in small business and knowing how badly raising the minimum wage affects employers and employees (many of whom can no longer be employed because of it), I oppose this bill and urge my senators to oppose it.

I would probably support the rest of it without that though.  The "Renaissance zone" idea is much more realistic than Al's "Let's return everything back to the 1930s" industries of historical importance crap.

[Bono]

This is also in violation of the senate rules concerning bills on more than one subject.

[Peter]

This is also in violation of the senate rules concerning bills on more than one subject.

Its all to do with economic deprivation, so the subject matters are not "divorced subjects"; Fortunately I made the language in that SPR so incredibly loose that I could fit the Eiffel Tower through it.

[Bono]

This is also in violation of the senate rules concerning bills on more than one subject.

Its all to do with economic deprivation, so the subject matters are not "divorced subjects"; Fortunately I made the language in that SPR so incredibly loose that I could fit the Eiffel Tower through it.

Well, I'd like to know what the PPT thinks of that(altough he'll probably agree with you. Class spirit.)

[The Duke]

I will support this bill when I assume office as Senator.

And by the way, most states including mine have a minimum wage above the Federal one, and many, including mine, will have one higher than the proposed $7.15 p/h.  It seems the minimum wage portion of the bill is directed at states that lag behind the rest of the country.

One clarification we might make, will all a business' operations be tax exempt, or just the ones in the Rennaisance Zone?  If Burger King opens one shop in the zone, will the whole company be exempt from tax or just the one franchise?

[Nym90]

This is also in violation of the senate rules concerning bills on more than one subject.

Its all to do with economic deprivation, so the subject matters are not "divorced subjects"; Fortunately I made the language in that SPR so incredibly loose that I could fit the Eiffel Tower through it.

Yes, I consider the bill a comprehensive effort to fight poverty.

I do not feel it is unreasonable for the minimum wage to return to the level that it was at in 1968. Was it too high in 1968? Was it hurting the economy at that time?

Also, notice that it would slowly increase over the next 4 years. It would not be a sudden rise, so there would be time to adjust to it. Looking at Dibble's graph, the slow increases in the minimum wage in 1996 and 1997 had much less of an effect than the rapid rise implemented from 1989-1991.

The minimum wage would also be boosted to a level such that a married couple, both earning the minimum wage, would be above the threshold at which they could afford a two-bedroom apartment, as noted in the figures cited by Sen. Gabu.

John Ford--only the business located within the Zone would be affected. Not all Burger Kings nationwide; only a newly opened one within the Zone would be tax free for 5 years.

[Gabu]

This is also in violation of the senate rules concerning bills on more than one subject.

Its all to do with economic deprivation, so the subject matters are not "divorced subjects"; Fortunately I made the language in that SPR so incredibly loose that I could fit the Eiffel Tower through it.

Well, I'd like to know what the PPT thinks of that(altough he'll probably agree with you. Class spirit.)

Actually, I personally think that this would be better as two separate bills.  The two topics are vaguely related if you stretch it, but I think it would be good for everyone if there were two separate votes, as it's very easy to see how one could support one part and not support the other, and it's not fair to force everyone to take it all as one huge bundle to be taken or left.

[Nym90]

I wouldn't mind splitting it into two seperate pieces of legislation. The main reason I combined them is that both policies will help to combat poverty; in addition, there are so many bills before the Senate already that I wanted to cut down on the clutter a bit.

But if the majority opinion is that this should be 2 bills, I have no problem with that.

For those who claim that the minimum wage hike will cause a loss of jobs, won't the renaissance zones cause a net creation of jobs? I notice those who criticized the first part stayed silent on the second portion of the bill. :-)

Basically the idea of combining them was to present a comprehensive anti-poverty bill, that would help those most in need of it (those with the lowest incomes, and those who live in the poorest areas).

[Sam Spade]

I wouldn't mind splitting it into two seperate pieces of legislation. The main reason I combined them is that both policies will help to combat poverty; in addition, there are so many bills before the Senate already that I wanted to cut down on the clutter a bit.

But if the majority opinion is that this should be 2 bills, I have no problem with that.

For those who claim that the minimum wage hike will cause a loss of jobs, won't the renaissance zones cause a net creation of jobs? I notice those who criticized the first part stayed silent on the second portion of the bill. :-)

Basically the idea of combining them was to present a comprehensive anti-poverty bill, that would help those most in need of it (those with the lowest incomes, and those who live in the poorest areas).

I said I would support the second part as a separate bill from the first as a much better alternative to Al's bill, so that ain't exactly accurate.  :-)

But then again, I'm not a Senator either.

[Nym90]

I wouldn't mind splitting it into two seperate pieces of legislation. The main reason I combined them is that both policies will help to combat poverty; in addition, there are so many bills before the Senate already that I wanted to cut down on the clutter a bit.

But if the majority opinion is that this should be 2 bills, I have no problem with that.

For those who claim that the minimum wage hike will cause a loss of jobs, won't the renaissance zones cause a net creation of jobs? I notice those who criticized the first part stayed silent on the second portion of the bill. :-)

Basically the idea of combining them was to present a comprehensive anti-poverty bill, that would help those most in need of it (those with the lowest incomes, and those who live in the poorest areas).

I said I would support the second part as a separate bill from the first as a much better alternative to Al's bill, so that ain't exactly accurate. :-)

But then again, I'm not a Senator either.

You are correct, sorry. I forgot about you.

[Colin]

First I must say this. I will not support the raising of the minimum wage. While few people actually make minimum wage the effects of raising it, especially to a level as high as $7.15 an hour, would harm the economy. I believe with the upturn in the economy as fragile as it is now we should not do anything that may impact growth in a negative way and it has been shown that an increase in the minimum wage often effects the economy negatively.

Secondly, being a person who is from a city that is currently in bankruptcy, these Renaissance zones really will not help to revive a failing area. In Pittsburgh we have had an advisory council to try and bring the city out of deficit. It has been over a year and a half since Mayor Murphy declared bankruptcy but still the council and the Mayor have not been able to approve a budget that will lead to a reduction in deficits. Mostly what has happened is that firefighters, policemen, and other city workers have been cut but the deficit has grown any smaller and the Pittsburgh economy hasn't grown in any sizable way.

Just my two cents.

[Nym90]

I don't really see what your Pittsburgh example has to do with Renaissaince Zones.

I agree with you that it won't cure all of the problems of cities, if that's what you are getting at, but wouldn't bringing in new businesses to poor communities help them to balance their budgets? Even though the businesses themselves would pay no tax, the employees who work there will still pay income tax on their incomes, the property that the business builds on and the area around it will be more valuable, resulting in a greater influx of property tax money, and the sales tax on the products being purchased at the business will still be collected. So this Act will help to reduce the financial crisis at all levels of government; the lack of collecting an income tax from these businesses will not hurt since if they don't move in in the first place, there is no income tax revenue anyway.