Maybe the details of a living wage proposal are enough to justify dumping the city commission plan.

Perhaps the trouble Lawrence city commissioners are having in refining a living wage plan is an indication that setting a wage requirement for companies that receive tax abatements isn’t all that good an idea.

The problems with the proposal are both practical and philosophical. Commissioners were dealing Tuesday night mostly with the practical issues.

One of those is whom to include in the proposal for a living wage, defined as a wage that would support a family of three at 130 percent of the federal poverty level. Should an existing company that seeks a tax abatement for an expansion project have to pay the living wage to all of its employees or only those in jobs created by the tax-abated expansion?

This obviously would be a big issue for companies with a large number of employees earning less than the living wage. It would be unfortunate if such companies, which already have shown loyalty and contributed to the Lawrence economy, became unwilling to expand their operations here because, if they sought a tax abatement, they would be required to pay all their employees a living wage.

Commissioners decided only employees added in an expansion would be covered, which may be logical but difficult to enforce. Does this mean companies with tax abatements will have a cap on the number of employees they have who earn less than a living wage? What is the practical effect to a business trying to pay employees on two different payscales?

Training also is an issue. A company should have a certain training period for employees before the living wage requirement kicks in. Commissioners decided a 60-day probationary period was long enough, although Lawrence Chamber of Commerce officials had advocated a period of 13 40-hour weeks.

Commissioners also decided that companies that didn’t pay the wage could lose their tax abatements after two years. This requirement again points out the problems with enforcing a living wage proposal. Presumably the city will have access to payroll data, but even so, it seems there would be different ways to analyze and interpret the figures.

In addition to the problems discussed Tuesday night, there are philosophical issues that continue to nag many local residents about the living wage. Lawrence would be the only city in the state with such a policy and one of a relative handful nationwide. Given a choice between a city that requires a living wage as part of a tax abatement and one that does not, which would a new business choose? All things being equal, why mess with the additional restrictions in Lawrence?

While Lawrence residents want to attract well-paying jobs to the city, they also recognize that not everyone who works is trying to support a family of three. Some people are looking for entry-level jobs or jobs that fit around a school or family schedule. Some people don’t even need jobs that offer benefits, such as health insurance.

Commissioners have noted that the living wage proposal being considered here would affect relatively few existing jobs. That fact can be used as a justification to go ahead with the plan because it’s not a big deal to local business — or it might be a reason to drop the plan because it would have a greater negative effect on the business environment than is justified by the positive effect on individual workers.

City commissioners clearly are heading toward a living wage proposal of some sort. The issues that must be resolved, however, are raising some red flags for many local observers.