$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,068
Reaction score
3,235
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Higher paid labor can still generate more tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.
Gibberish.

law of large numbers. n. The rule or theorem that a large number of items chosen at random from a population will, on the average, have the characteristics of the population.
What is the ratio of employees to corporations on average?

How much income tax revenue is generated by corporations versus labor?
What is the ratio of employees to corporations on average?

Irrelevant.

How much income tax revenue is generated by corporations versus labor?

What is the tax rate on corporate income versus the tax rate on minimum wage workers?
You missed the point of the previous quote.

The corporate income tax is the third-largest source of federal revenue, although substantially smaller than the individual income tax and payroll taxes.

Individual income tax is the largest source of federal revenue. Corporate tax comes in Third. And, the relevant point is that corporate income tax is not tied to expensing labor costs. Some corporations pay no income tax due to factors other than labor costs.

Thus, higher paid labor generates more in Tax Revenue and creates more in demand.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,694
Reaction score
12,823
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
The corporate income tax is the third-largest source of federal revenue, although substantially smaller than the individual income tax and payroll taxes.
Irrelevant.

What is the tax rate on corporate income versus the tax rate on minimum wage workers?

the relevant point is that corporate income tax is not tied to expensing labor costs.

Baloney. An extra dollar paid to a MW worker is taxed at 10% on his end and reduces
corporate income tax paid at 21% on the company end.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,068
Reaction score
3,235
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
What is the tax rate on corporate income versus the tax rate on minimum wage workers?
Doesn't matter since corporate income tax revenue is less than individual income tax revenue regardless. Increasing the minimum wage means more individual income tax revenue for the federal government. And, some corporations pay no income tax anyway. Thus, if a corporation pays no income tax anyway, how is it any form of loss of revenue for the federal government in that case?
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
792
Points
170
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs?

So your tax revenue forecasts are wrong and the MW does increase the taxes businesses pay by more that just the cost of the salary increase
No one cares what the traitors to this country think. You don't even have a voice in this country anymore, We shoot traitors in this country.
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
792
Points
170
No need for me to interpret their publications when I can simply post from them.
ToddsterPatriot, I suppose you may try to read what you cut- paste-n-post, but you apparently do not understand it, or you simply lack judgement. Families exceeding three times their poverty thresholds have always been and are expected in the foreseeable future to be a minority of all U.S. families.

USA totals of families within brackets of incomes not exceeding three times their poverty thresholds, are the majority of USA’s families. Only aggregate families within the higher income brackets, (a minority of USA’s families) are projected to lose some of their incomes’ purchasing powers. The majority of USA Families’ are projected to increase their aggregate incomes’ purchasing powers by a range from 7.7 to 14.2 billion dollars and 5.2% to 3.5% of proportional increases.

USA’s families’ total incomes’ purchasing powers are projected to be reduce. Due to the increases of the federal minimum wage rate, USA’s entire family incomes’ total purchasing powers are projected to be reduced by a net 8.8 billion dollars and a proportional reduction of LESS THAN 1/10 of 1 PERCENT.

Due to the minimum wage rate increases, there are net projected reductions of 1.3 million people in poverty.


The projected increases of unemployment are a median of 1.3 million, but it could be as much as 3.7 million workers. But USA employees are projected to see increases of their average weekly earnings; The projections are for 17 million of them directly, and potentially an additional 10.3 of them indirectly are projected to be increased.

These statistical amounts and proportions are found within table 1 on page 3 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) . U.S. Congressional Budget Office cites they used monthly and annual data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey to prepare that table. Regardless of your continuous whining, something very similar to the “Raise the Wage Act” proposal will inevitably be passed by a U.S. congress and enacted into law by a U.S. president. (It will, as all increases to our federal minimum wage rate have been), of net improvement to USA’s economic and social wellbeing. Respectfully, Supposn
No one should worry or care about what a person making 50,000,00 a year pays in taxes or what they lose or gain by a Minimum wage income. not in the slightest. Massive increase in Taxes for big b and the Fat ass large income earners Is what is needed. To much of a free ride for them now.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,670
Reaction score
3,491
Points
195
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs?

So your tax revenue forecasts are wrong and the MW does increase the taxes businesses pay by more that just the cost of the salary increase
No one cares what the traitors to this country think. You don't even have a voice in this country anymore, We shoot traitors in this country.
Oh i get it you're just another idiot who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a Trump supporter.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
130
Points
85
how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs? ...
Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,670
Reaction score
3,491
Points
195
how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs? ...
Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,693
Reaction score
5,984
Points
280
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,670
Reaction score
3,491
Points
195
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,693
Reaction score
5,984
Points
280
No it doesn't because it costs more than a dollar to get that dollar to the government in the form of a tax payment and then back into the economy.
And the dollar paid in welfare by the government is not worth any more than a dollar it isn't magically multiplied.
That is not what happens when wages are increased. What taxes are being taken out of the economy by employers having to pay higher wages?
All taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

and what you don't seem to understand is that the actual cost of an employee is more than their salary.

You seem to think that if you give a person a 100% pay raise that the only cost to the employer is the salary increase. But that employer will have to pay higher payroll taxes, higher workers' comp fees, higher state and federal unemployment taxes so unless that employer can pass all those costs on to his customers he will see a net decrease in profits.

And there is a point in every sector of the economy where people will stop buying a product if the price rises high enough. And it won't matter if a very small percentage of the population will have a little more money because it will most likely not be enough to counter the loss of current customers as they see their purchasing power decline
The increase in real earnings is not coming from taxes but from the private sector. Thus, your premise is wrong from the start.
You asked what taxes are being taken out of the economy.

ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy.
That is 100% bullshit , me spending a dollar or government spending a dollar ,drives the market exactly the same. good grief , so far I've seen nothing you have written to even be close to reality. You area typical right winger , making it up as you go,
You just destroyed your own argument, and this is how. That dollar was happily doing its thing, being spent over and over again in the economy, generating its multiplier. Suddenly it was taxed, pulled out of the economy and stopped generating its multiplier. Then, oh frabjous day, it was put back into the economy and began generating its multiplier all over again like all good dollars are taught to do from little up, only it's not quite as big as it was because some of it was siphoned off to pay federal workers and go into congresscritters' pockets, but we're not supposed to notice that's going on. So what was the net result? Not a whole lot of change, because it first had to STOP generating its multiplier so it could START generating it again. The only way you get a true stimulus to the economy is to borrow against the future and drive up inflation by creating new dollars and injecting them into the economy. That's why stimulus programs involve federal debt, not new taxes.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,693
Reaction score
5,984
Points
280
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC
And it's inevitable that, as prices and unemployment rise, the pressure will be brought to bear for the government to stop being so mean to MW earners and give them tax relief. Bye-bye increased tax revenues. These people never seem to see beyond next week. All they can see is bigger paychecks right now.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,068
Reaction score
3,235
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs? ...
Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses
Businesses downsize and cut jobs merely for the bottom line. Why should anyone believe right wingers actually care about lost jobs due to a wage increase?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,068
Reaction score
3,235
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,068
Reaction score
3,235
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC
Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,693
Reaction score
5,984
Points
280
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.
I know you believe that in spite of everything to the contrary. You've made that clear by doggedly, stubbornly, dogmatically repeating it every chance you get.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,693
Reaction score
5,984
Points
280
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC
Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".
And at the same time you're going to make more and more qualify for the EITC and the like by putting them out of work. You just never learn.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,693
Reaction score
5,984
Points
280
how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs? ...
Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses
Businesses downsize and cut jobs merely for the bottom line. Why should anyone believe right wingers actually care about lost jobs due to a wage increase?
That doesn't change the reality that the worst hit with job losses will be the ones on the bottom rung of the ladder.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,670
Reaction score
3,491
Points
195
how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs? ...
Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses
Businesses downsize and cut jobs merely for the bottom line. Why should anyone believe right wingers actually care about lost jobs due to a wage increase?
When you stop looking at the world in 2 dimensions let me know until then I have no time to waste conversing with people with a world view that consists of 2 pigeonholes.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,670
Reaction score
3,491
Points
195
There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.
You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.
And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.
You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.
I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run
That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.
They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.
not if they lose their jobs
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top