Is Fed Counterfeiting An Economic Stimulus?

[Oddball]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

You may just as well be trying to persuade a lump of dirt.

 

[Gdjjr]

"the deficit doesn't matter" I think eventually it does, cuz you gotta pay interest on the money you borrow no matter who you are. There's gotta be some point at which foreign interests and gov'ts and US banks, businesses, and citizens will stop buying US debt unless the interest rate rises and that in turn means we're in major trouble because the interest payments alone will be murderous. We just won't be able to outspend our revenue, so either our taxes will rise precipitously or our spending gets drastically cut. Probably both, and it's going to be really hard times for awhile IMHO.

Maybe reading and word comprehension would be of value- I'll admit I write and speak at higher than a 4th grade level though-

Check this out

In the scheme of things (world wide hegemony, i.e. New World Order [ala bush sr] the deficit doesn't matter.

and this

The New World Order means someone/something has to be in charge- follow the money, see the agenda- close your eyes and see only what's in your head- what would be in your head is what you hear- as in told-

I came up with a phrase several years ago (15 or so)- when havoc is created, chaos ensues and catastrophe is inevitable- the time line will be assigned by Historians- IMNSHO it could be 1776- since man has always determined it needed someone else in charge and 1776 allegedly changed that- havoc was created- chaos ensued with the federal reserve "act"- it acts as an omnipotent- so, we await the catastrophe- in humanity that is the shedding of blood- quantity matters but is immaterial to this serenade- the catastrophe can be minimized, but not avoided- it is a natural order being fulfilled-

Truth can help minimize the effect but it can't immediately change the direction of the dynamic- immediately changing the direction of a dynamic, regardless of it's make up, will result in a catastrophic effect-

it's not rocket science-

Meanings & Definitions of English Words | Dictionary.com

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Dictionary.com is the world's leading online source for English definitions, synonyms, word origins and etymologies, audio pronunciations, example sentences, ..

 

[Slade3200]

As for the Fed counterfeiting money, that is bullshit.

Counterfeit is a hyperbolic and plainly inaccurate word to use.

Not if you understand the monetary policy, it isn't. It's legalized money out of thin air.

For instance...

To steal a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”

Of course , 'money' has to be a store of value to actually be money. All they're really creating is currency. Federal Reserve Notes.


Let me ask you this. Matter of fact, let's make it country simple for everyone and start backward.

What is the unit of account for 1 Federal Reserve Note? Or one dollar, if you like.

Your example doesn’t make sense. When you write a check you for need money to back it up. But you can also buy with credit and borrow the money while paying an interest rate. But neither of these concepts apply to our country. Individuals are trading and using the federal reserve notes, while our government is in control of their own sovereign currency. It used to be backed by gold but is now managed by fiat.

 

[task0778]

"the deficit doesn't matter" I think eventually it does, cuz you gotta pay interest on the money you borrow no matter who you are. There's gotta be some point at which foreign interests and gov'ts and US banks, businesses, and citizens will stop buying US debt unless the interest rate rises and that in turn means we're in major trouble because the interest payments alone will be murderous. We just won't be able to outspend our revenue, so either our taxes will rise precipitously or our spending gets drastically cut. Probably both, and it's going to be really hard times for awhile IMHO.

Maybe reading and word comprehension would be of value- I'll admit I write and speak at higher than a 4th grade level though-

Check this out

In the scheme of things (world wide hegemony, i.e. New World Order [ala bush sr] the deficit doesn't matter.

and this

The New World Order means someone/something has to be in charge- follow the money, see the agenda- close your eyes and see only what's in your head- what would be in your head is what you hear- as in told-

I came up with a phrase several years ago (15 or so)- when havoc is created, chaos ensues and catastrophe is inevitable- the time line will be assigned by Historians- IMNSHO it could be 1776- since man has always determined it needed someone else in charge and 1776 allegedly changed that- havoc was created- chaos ensued with the federal reserve "act"- it acts as an omnipotent- so, we await the catastrophe- in humanity that is the shedding of blood- quantity matters but is immaterial to this serenade- the catastrophe can be minimized, but not avoided- it is a natural order being fulfilled-

Truth can help minimize the effect but it can't immediately change the direction of the dynamic- immediately changing the direction of a dynamic, regardless of it's make up, will result in a catastrophic effect-

it's not rocket science-

Meanings & Definitions of English Words | Dictionary.com

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Dictionary.com is the world's leading online source for English definitions, synonyms, word origins and etymologies, audio pronunciations, example sentences, ..

I'm telling you I didn't understand what you were saying. You're telling me it's my fault cuz I'm an idiot. Maybe that's true, I make no claims on intelligence, BUT maybe you should question your own writing skills. If you can't or won't bother to try to explain yourself better than this then IMHO you're wasting my time and yours.

Can anyone else tell me what he's talking about and what his point is?

 

[danielpalos]

There are some good comments here, so let me change the game a little.

In the scheme of things (world wide hegemony, i.e. New World Order [ala bush sr] the deficit doesn't matter.

If we had a real budget surplus we would still have the fruit of our labor taken through threat of force-

The New World Order means someone/something has to be in charge- follow the money, see the agenda- close your eyes and see only what's in your head- what would be in your head is what you hear- as in told-

I don't believe there is a good answer about what to do- it wouldn't matter anyway since it ain't gonna change.
Politicians know that- no, I'm not condoning Empty Suit behavior-

I came up with a phrase several years ago (15 or so)- when havoc is created, chaos ensues and catastrophe is inevitable- the time line will be assigned by Historians- IMNSHO it could be 1776- since man has always determined it needed someone else in charge and 1776 allegedly changed that- havoc was created- chaos ensued with the federal reserve "act"- it acts as an omnipotent- so, we await the catastrophe- in humanity that is the shedding of blood- quantity matters but is immaterial to this serenade- the catastrophe can be minimized, but not avoided- it is a natural order being fulfilled- Truth can help minimize the effect but it can't immediately change the direction of the dynamic- immediately changing the direction of a dynamic, regardless of it's make up, will result in a catastrophic effect- think of it similar to a race car going wide open and then turning abruptly- there will be a catastrophe IF the truth wasn't involved in the preparation of the car- the Truth in that sense is; build the car so adjustments can be made incrementally by the crew and the driver to maintain control- incremental being 'a' key- Truth being 'the' key- the Truth, in regard to man (humanity all) is; all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- acknowledgement of that cannot be forced- using force is the exact opposite of the philosophy- so, we're left with sowing seeds for incremental change of direction- what seeds you ask- the seeds of Liberty- they will bear fruit with care and nurture applied- we are witnessing/consuming the fruit of seeds sown long before any of us were even a gleam in someone's eye- we got here incrementally we will leave the same way, catastrophically - so our time to sow seeds is at hand-

Government is socialism under our form of Capitalism. Raise the minimum wage to raise the necessary revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

Why do you say that? You can only mean that in the short run equilibrium not the long run equilibrium. Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

You may just as well be trying to persuade a lump of dirt.

View attachment 409157

It is why I can be grateful our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

Why do you say that? You can only mean that in the short run equilibrium not the long run equilibrium. Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

Why do you say that?

Because it's true.

Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now.

On the employee side.

What happens on the employer side?

 

[danielpalos]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

Why do you say that? You can only mean that in the short run equilibrium not the long run equilibrium. Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

Why do you say that?

Because it's true.

Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now.

On the employee side.

View attachment 409865

What happens on the employer side?

The employer gets to Expense employee costs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

Why do you say that? You can only mean that in the short run equilibrium not the long run equilibrium. Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

Why do you say that?

Because it's true.

Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now.

On the employee side.

View attachment 409865

What happens on the employer side?

The employer gets to Expense employee costs.

The employer gets to Expense employee costs.

Yes!!

Employers getting write-offs at a 21% tax rate reduces government revenue more than
increasing employee income at a 10% or 12% tax rate increases government revenue.

Maybe you should stop pushing that particular stupid claim?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The U.S. government, the IMF, the Federal Reserve and major Central Banks have all been moving gradually from old Monetarist and “budget balancing” shibboleths to adopt forms of “Modern Monetary Theory.” There are many ways this is likely to change the way we think about taxation, “locked boxes,” and federal government spending. Here is a short excerpt from Warren Mosler, the original popularizer of this theory:

“There is no such thing as having to ‘get’ taxes (or borrow) to make a spread sheet entry that we call ‘government spending.’...
The Federal Government doesn’t ever ‘have’ or ‘not have’ any dollars [anymore than a scorekeeper at a football game or bowling alley “has” or “doesn’t have” a fixed stock of points to give out] ...

“When it comes to the dollar, our government, working through its Federal agencies called the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Treasury Department, is the scorekeeper (and makes all the rules!)....

“You now have the operational answer to the question: ‘How are we going to pay for it?’ Answer, the same way government pays for anything, it changes the numbers in our bank accounts.

“The Federal government isn’t going to ‘run out of money’... Nor is it dependent on ‘getting’ dollars from China or anyone else. All it takes for the government to spend is change numbers up in bank accounts at its own bank, the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no numerical limit to how many dollars our government can spend, whenever it wants to spend. (This includes making interest payments, and Social Security and Medicare payments.) It includes all government payments made in dollars to anyone.

“This is not to say excess government spending won’t possibly cause prices to go up (which we call inflation). It is to say the [Federal] government can’t go broke and can’t be bankrupt [unless it wishes to] ...

“So why does no one in government seem to get it? Why does the Ways and Means Committee in Congress worry about ‘how are we going to pay for it’? One reason might be because they are stuck in the popular notion that the federal government, just like any household, must somehow first ‘get’ money to be able to spend it.

“Yes, they have heard that it’s different for a government, but they don’t believe it ... What they all miss is the difference between spending your own currency that only you create, and spending a currency someone else creates.”

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf


Here is a summary of the principal tenets of Modern Monetary Theory:

“A government that issues its own fiat money:
“1. Can pay for goods, services, and financial assets without a need to collect money in the form of taxes or debt issuance in advance of such purchases;
“2. Cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency;
“3. Is only limited in its money creation and purchases by inflation, which accelerates once the real resources (labour, capital and natural resources) of the economy are utilized at full employment;
“4. Can control demand-pull inflation by taxation which removes excess money from circulation (although the political will to do so may not always exist);
“5. Does not compete with the private sector for scarce savings by issuing bonds.”

From: Modern Monetary Theory - Wikipedia
(Which also explains the differences between mainstream Keynesianism and MMT.)

 

[justoffal]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

How very, very True.....

 

[danielpalos]

Given all of the recent hype about the GDP, and the fact that we're seeing Democrats and Republicans literally arguing over who will get credit for all of the new debt, I figured a good dose of reality might serve helpful to the casual reader who may wish to better understand what's actually going on. Particularly since nobody ever asks where so much of the money comes from in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest “Update on the Budget Outlook,” this year’s $3.3 trillion federal deficit is not just three times larger than last year: it is the largest federal deficit in history. The CBO update also predicts that the federal debt will equal 104 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) next year and will reach 108 percent of GDP by 2030.

The CBO update also shows that the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds will all be bankrupt by 2031. This will put pressure on Congress to bail out the trust funds thus further increasing the debt.


Anyway. Off we go....



''Politicians want the Fed to counterfeit more money. The Fed wants politicians to spend the counterfeit money even faster. All are trying to "stimulate" a broken economy that rests on a foundation of sand: central economic planning. Human civilization, society, and the economy cannot be controlled by Fed price-fixers, counterfeiters and bureaucrats. Freedom and sound money are the only things that can fix what they have broken.''

Raise the minimum wage to raise more federal income tax revenue!

Raising the minimum wage would reduce federal revenue.

Why do you say that? You can only mean that in the short run equilibrium not the long run equilibrium. Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

Why do you say that?

Because it's true.

Raising the minimum can raise several times more in federal income tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now.

On the employee side.

View attachment 409865

What happens on the employer side?

The employer gets to Expense employee costs.

The employer gets to Expense employee costs.

Yes!!

Employers getting write-offs at a 21% tax rate reduces government revenue more than
increasing employee income at a 10% or 12% tax rate increases government revenue.

Maybe you should stop pushing that particular stupid claim?

No, it doesn't. The law of large numbers claims otherwise. And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it doesn't. The law of large numbers claims otherwise. And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

The law of large numbers claims otherwise.

The law of large numbers? LOL!

21% is larger than 10%. DURR.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. The law of large numbers claims otherwise. And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

The law of large numbers claims otherwise.

The law of large numbers? LOL!

21% is larger than 10%. DURR.

How many employees are involved?

An employee at a fifteen dollar an hour wage rate generates around 1853 dollars in federal income tax revenue when compared to a person making the current federal minimum wage and paying the taxes on that wage rate, approximately 194 dollars. It is around nine times more from each employee still working at the higher fifteen dollar an hour wage rate. What ratio would an employer typically reduce their labor costs if the cost of Labor goes up?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many employees are involved?

21% is larger than 12%, no matter the number of employees.

 

[danielpalos]

How many employees are involved?

21% is larger than 12%, no matter the number of employees.

How does expensing the cost of labor meet your criteria? Expensing means less income to be taxed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many employees are involved?

21% is larger than 12%, no matter the number of employees.

How does expensing the cost of labor meet your criteria? Expensing means less income to be taxed.

Damn you're dim.

If an employer pays an additional $10,000 to a worker who is taxed at 12%,
the employer has an additional expense of $10,000 which reduces their tax at a 21% rate.

The Feds get $1200 more from the worker and $2100 less from the employer.

Now do you see your error?

If your argument is "increased income tax revenues" it fails.

 

[danielpalos]

How many employees are involved?

21% is larger than 12%, no matter the number of employees.

How does expensing the cost of labor meet your criteria? Expensing means less income to be taxed.

Damn you're dim.

If an employer pays an additional $10,000 to a worker who is taxed at 12%,
the employer has an additional expense of $10,000 which reduces their tax at a 21% rate.

The Feds get $1200 more from the worker and $2100 less from the employer.

Now do you see your error?

If your argument is "increased income tax revenues" it fails.

It reduces taxable income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many employees are involved?

21% is larger than 12%, no matter the number of employees.

How does expensing the cost of labor meet your criteria? Expensing means less income to be taxed.

Damn you're dim.

If an employer pays an additional $10,000 to a worker who is taxed at 12%,
the employer has an additional expense of $10,000 which reduces their tax at a 21% rate.

The Feds get $1200 more from the worker and $2100 less from the employer.

Now do you see your error?

If your argument is "increased income tax revenues" it fails.

It reduces taxable income.

It reduces corporate income tax paid.
By more than it increases income tax paid by the minimum wage worker.
If your argument is "increased income tax revenues" it fails.