State Reps. Themis Klarides (R-114), Charles Ferraro (R-117) and Kathy Kennedy (R-119) opposed legislation to increase to the minimum wage to $15 an hour in a nearly a 15-hour debate, from May 8 to the early afternoon on May 9, in the state House of Representatives.
The House Republican caucus offered eight amendments to the legislation. For example, House Amendment Schedule G was offered to exempt municipalities from having to pay employees $15 an hour.
“I am seriously concerned about the negative impact this legislation will have on our various communities,” Klarides said. “From the small business owners’ impeded ability to afford staff and keep their doors open, to the intellectually and developmentally disabled population’s reduced access to employment opportunities. This bill will continue Connecticut’s stunted economic growth.”
“Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and taking away the control from the legislature on future minimum wage increase is reckless fiscal policy,” Ferraro said. “As a small business owner, I can tell you firsthand this will have a negative impact on businesses large and small. Municipal leaders will also have to increase the minimum wage for city and town employees, which will be difficult for any size municipality and could result in higher local taxes. This will no doubt cost every taxpayer in Connecticut more money.”
The final version of the bill will increase the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour over a four-and-a-half-year period, the fastest pace to $15 dollars an hour in the country. Among its more controversial components is a provision allowing the minimum wage to increase beyond $15 without legislative approval as it relates to the employment cost index.
The bill ultimately passed the House. It now awaits action in the Senate.
What would be better than raising the minimum wage by $X/week? A punitive “vacancy tax” on vacant land and unoccupied buildings, which property owners are so keen to avoid that it *reduces rents* by $X/week. Why would this be better? Because:
(1) When you allow for income tax (and withdrawal of welfare, if applicable), a dollar *saved* is worth much more than a dollar *earned*.
(2) By themselves, higher wages would be competed away in higher rents. Landlords might even try to raise rents by the *gross* increase in wages, not allowing for the Effective Marginal Tax Rate.
(3) Nobody says lower rents would price workers out of a job! Indeed, the scramble to avoid the vacancy tax would *create* jobs. And the lower rents would create more jobs, because jobs can’t exist unless (a) the employers can afford business accommodation, and (b) the employees can afford housing within reach of their jobs, on wages that the employers can pay. (Implication: The tax should apply to both commercial & residential property.)
(4) Why should employers pay for a problem caused by deadbeat landowners?
(5) The economic activity driven by a vacancy tax would broaden the bases of other taxes, allowing their rates to be reduced, so that the rest of us would pay LESS tax!