What are the positions on a minimum wage?

Higher minimum wages would increase government revenue

Question: What are the positions on a minimum wage?
Position1 of 5›: The minimum wage is too low
Argument1 of 3›: Higher minimum wages would increase government revenue

The government would benefit from a higher minimum wage in the form of increased revenue.

The argument

The government, in its duty to protect the welfare of its citizens, has a responsibility to ensure that people's basic needs are met. Those unable to earn enough money to meet their basic needs receive government handouts in the form of benefits, food stamps, tax credits, housing assistance, and so on. Low minimum wage rates fail to reduce poverty and therefore increase the financial burden on the government who must fill in the gaps and provide assistance to the poor. Poverty is mostly experienced by minimum wage workers because it fails to provide enough to live on. “Today, however, a single parent earning the current federal minimum wage does not earn enough through full-time work to bring his or her family above the federal poverty line.” As a result, minimum wage earners often depend on government assistance. Economists predict that gradually raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty without reducing employment rates. An increase to the minimum wage boosts people’s incomes and as a result, they end up needing fewer government benefits and are able to pay more in taxes. By raising the minimum wage, the government stands to spend less and make more. In addition, higher incomes place more money into individual people’s pockets for them to reinvest back into the economy. More public spending means more demand for goods and services, thus boosting business revenues and prompting job creation to cater to the increased demand.

Premises

[P1]The government bears the cost of supporting workers whose wages fall below subsistence through benefits, food stamps, and other assistance. [P2] Raising the minimum wage would lift many workers above the poverty line, reducing their reliance on government assistance and increasing their tax contributions. [P3] Higher wages also boost consumer spending, which expands business revenues and tax bases. [C] Therefore, the current minimum wage is too low, since raising it would improve government finances while reducing poverty.

Counter-arguments

Critics argue the fiscal case assumes away its hardest question — what happens to employment. If a higher mandated floor cuts hours or jobs for the least-skilled, some workers lose income entirely and draw more assistance, not less, offsetting the projected savings. Employers can also pass higher labour costs into prices or automation rather than into net new demand, weakening the multiplier the argument relies on. And much minimum-wage income accrues to secondary earners in non-poor households, loosening the link between the wage floor and poverty relief. On this view the revenue-and-savings claim holds only if employment stays constant, which is exactly what is disputed.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Not every sub-subsistence earner draws benefits, and some assistance phases out gradually as earnings rise, so the government's fiscal offset from a wage rise is smaller than assumed. [Rejecting P2] The claim presupposes unchanged employment; if a higher floor reduces low-skill jobs or hours, displaced workers claim more assistance and pay less tax, reversing the projected gain. [Rejecting P3] Higher labour costs can be absorbed by prices or automation rather than converted into new consumer demand, so the boost to business revenue and job creation is uncertain.