all that I've done is provided workers with the same subsidies provided to business. In addition, monies that would have been provided back to the states are given to workers of the state. ie; the actual numbers don't change, whom gets paid does.
Now I am starting to see the problem. If what I'm about to say doesn't actually fit what you believe, then you should clarify, because this is how I'm taking this.
The problem lies with the word 'subsidies'.
See, in right-wing land... to subsidize, has a very specific meaning. We believe that earned money is owned by the person who earned it, thus it is their property, and theirs alone.
To subsidize, means to take money from the pocket of person X, have the government give a bunch of it to bureaucracies, then the government gives out a portion to Person Y. So person X, through the tyranny of government, is forced to subsidize person Y.
That is a 'subsidy' in Right-wing land.
In Liftard Land... Subsidize has a nebulous meaning. They tend to all believe the first example is a subsidy, yes, but they also believe other things too. They believe that all money in the world is theirs. That wage you are 'earning' is really their money, and they are just allowing you to have a portion of it.
Thus, if they decide that you must give them $100 every month, and then one month they only take $90, instead of $100, then they have 'subsidized' you, because that $10 you have, is really their money, and they are only giving you the privileged of having that money.
In short, a tax deduction, you paying less of 'their money' to them, is them subsidizing you.
So people on the left tend to call a business not paying quite as much in taxes, as they could pay if they had no deductions, in leftard world is a subsidy.
So here's the problem.
When you see a business getting $100,000 in subsidies, to a typical leftard, that means the business is 'getting' $100,000.
So if the business is 'getting' $100,000, then why can't we just shift that $100,000 to the employee??
Well because the company is not 'getting' $100,000. It's $100,000 in deduction. And even that is not $100,000 saved in taxes. That's not how a deduction works.
If I pay $20,000 in mortgage interest on my home, I get a $20,000 deduction. Well that doesn't mean I save $20K. It means I save $20,000 X my tax rate, which is 25%. So I saved $5,000, by spending $20,000.
So a business getting $100,000 in tax deductions isn't even worth $100K.
But that doesn't change the fact that you can't pay employees with a deduction. A deduction doesn't magically create money, it reduces the lose of money.
When you jack up the wages to $23.50 an hour, moving a tax deduction from the employer to the employee, doesn't magically make money to pay the employee. If anything, it reduces the amount of money the employer has to pay wages with.
Most businesses are getting zero in real subsidies. They get taxes deductions, but there is no money the government is giving them, that can be moved to paying the employees.
And no business is paying even a fraction in taxes, that giving them a deduction, even a $1 to $1 deduction, would cover even the smallest fraction of a $23.50 an hour labor cost.
The government would end up losing all the tax revenue, and end up directly subsidizing the wages of 50% of the workers in America. If you want to have a direct replay of Greece in America, that's the way to do it. Complete national bankruptcy.
