Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[danielpalos]

... economic concepts which are often also political concepts, are generally not proven “beyond any reasonable doubt”. Much more often it’s the preponderance of evidence [and logical analysis leading us to determine the validity of those concepts].

Or, in the case of your claim, no evidence.

Toddsterpatriot, you quote me, and then ignore any portion of my post that inconvenience your arguments.

IMO our differences are less due to my lacking a preponderance of evidence and logical analysis leading to determining the validity of my arguments, but rather more to your inability to recognize the preponderance of those arguments’ validity. Respectfully, Supposn

IMO our differences are less due to my lacking a preponderance of evidence

You haven't posted any evidence to back up your opinion that,
"the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

It should shift the low wage sector of employment to a new equilibrium. An increase in the minimum wage is a market friendly, Institutional upward pressure on wages in the rest of the sector.

It should shift the low wage sector of employment to a new equilibrium.

View attachment 414761

DURR.

It would be, but a Minimum wage is a minimum not a maximum. An increase in wages creates more demand and generates more in federal income tax revenue. In the long run, a positive multiplier will apply to help correct that contraction.

An increase in wages creates more demand

View attachment 415106

and generates more in federal income tax revenue.

The higher business tax rate means a drop in federal income tax revenue.
21% is higher than 10% and higher than 12%, no matter how much weed you smoke.

You are special pleading. An economy is more than just microeconomics. Higher paid Labor at that wage rate tend to spend most of their disposable income sooner rather than later. HIgher demand could make up the difference along with more incentive to optimize for the bottom line.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are special pleading.

Math is not special pleading.
It refutes your claim.

Don't cry.

 

[danielpalos]

You are special pleading.

Math is not special pleading.
It refutes your claim.

Don't cry.

Only in the short run, from a micro-economics perspective.

An economy is more than just micro-economics.

What is higher paid Labor going to do with their increased purchasing power (parity)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only in the short run, from a micro-economics perspective.

Increasing low-skilled unemployment AND reducing income tax revenue is only in the short run?

Please......continue.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, your pretense of ignorance, ((i.e. duplicity) is tiresome. A complete fool might contend the numbers of persons earning precisely $7.25 per hour does or does not justify legally enforced minimum wage rates; I prefer to believe that I’m not corresponding with a complete fool.

My family has often heard our grandmother repeat the adage, ‘If three people say your drunk, quit trying to arise from the floor”; I suppose the adage is similarly found within the languages of many nations.
If almost all nations’ legislative bodies, (including our United States Congress), disagree, and none indicate any agreement with your opinion this mater, I’m suggesting perhaps your opinion might be of some fault? Respectfully, Supposn

... You haven't posted any evidence to back up your opinion that,
"the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

If almost all nations’ legislative bodies, (including our United States Congress), disagree,

If any agree with your above claim, post their agreement.
Please include their math.

ToddsterPatriot, due to the likelihood that lacking a definite and enforced legal minimum wage rate, their nations’ indefinite market determined minimum wage rates during poorer economic times, would be driven down to the drastically poorest of purchasing powers, is the reason why every, (or almost every) nation that can effectively enforce their laws, (regardless of those nations economic systems), all have some provisions for something that serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws.

Your foolish contending otherwise embarrasses the penname of ToddsterPatriot. Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to GDP Ranked by Country 2020 :
Further referring to the sites list of top 10 nations’ nominal annual gross domestic products’ and their GDPs’ per capita.

Which of those 10 top nations, (which includes the United States), does not have something government supported that’s similar to, or serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws? [In some nations those provisions are served by quasi-government entities that are supported by, or under the auspices of their nations’ governments].

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, your pretense of ignorance, ((i.e. duplicity) is tiresome. A complete fool might contend the numbers of persons earning precisely $7.25 per hour does or does not justify legally enforced minimum wage rates; I prefer to believe that I’m not corresponding with a complete fool.

My family has often heard our grandmother repeat the adage, ‘If three people say your drunk, quit trying to arise from the floor”; I suppose the adage is similarly found within the languages of many nations.
If almost all nations’ legislative bodies, (including our United States Congress), disagree, and none indicate any agreement with your opinion this mater, I’m suggesting perhaps your opinion might be of some fault? Respectfully, Supposn

... You haven't posted any evidence to back up your opinion that,
"the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

If almost all nations’ legislative bodies, (including our United States Congress), disagree,

If any agree with your above claim, post their agreement.
Please include their math.

ToddsterPatriot, due to the likelihood that lacking a definite and enforced legal minimum wage rate, their nations’ indefinite market determined minimum wage rates during poorer economic times, would be driven down to the drastically poorest of purchasing powers, is the reason why every, (or almost every) nation that can effectively enforce their laws, (regardless of those nations economic systems), all have some provisions for something that serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws.

Your foolish contending otherwise embarrasses the penname of ToddsterPatriot. Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to GDP Ranked by Country 2020 :
Further referring to the sites list of top 10 nations’ nominal annual gross domestic products’ and their GDPs’ per capita.

Which of those 10 top nations, (which includes the United States), does not have something government supported that’s similar to, or serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws? [In some nations those provisions are served by quasi-government entities that are supported by, or under the auspices of their nations’ governments].

due to the likelihood that lacking a definite and enforced legal minimum wage rate, their nations’ indefinite market determined minimum wage rates during poorer economic times,

Aren't "poorer economic times" precisely the time a minimum wage is most harmful?

Your foolish contending otherwise embarrasses the penname of ToddsterPatriot.

Especially when I refute your silly claims and point out your really poor math skills.

Which of those 10 top nations, (which includes the United States), does not have something government supported that’s similar to, or serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws?

Where did I ever claim they did or did not have such a law? Link?

 

[Supposn]

] ToddsterPatriot, ... Refer to GDP Ranked by Country 2020 :
Further referring to the sites list of top 10 nations’ nominal annual gross domestic products’ and their GDPs’ per capita.

Which of those 10 top nations, (which includes the United States), does not have something government supported that’s similar to, or serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws? [In some nations those provisions are served by quasi-government entities that are supported by, or under the auspices of their nations’ governments].

Aren't "poorer economic times" precisely the time a minimum wage is most harmful?

Your foolish contending otherwise embarrasses the penname of ToddsterPatriot.
Especially when I refute your silly claims and point out your really poor math skills.

Which of those 10 top nations, (which includes the United States), does not have something government supported that’s similar to, or serves the purpose of USA’s minimum wage rate laws?
Where did I ever claim they did or did not have such a law? Link?

ToddsterPatriot, you’ve never denied the laws of almost all, if not all governments among the world’s nations' greater economies, (regardless of the character of their nation’s economies), overwhelmingly support the concept of a minimum wage rate, or some similar provisions similar to it; you also have never acknowledged that is in fact the truth.

Poorer economic times is when a minimum wage rate is most needed and most beneficial for their nations’ economic and social wellbeing. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Only in the short run, from a micro-economics perspective.

Increasing low-skilled unemployment AND reducing income tax revenue is only in the short run?

Please......continue.

lol. Higher paid Labor spends more of that money sooner rather than later. The fast food joint could see higher sales simply because people who are working are making more money to spend. The multiplier effect takes care of the rest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poorer economic times is when a minimum wage rate is most needed

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only in the short run, from a micro-economics perspective.

Increasing low-skilled unemployment AND reducing income tax revenue is only in the short run?

Please......continue.

lol. Higher paid Labor spends more of that money sooner rather than later. The fast food joint could see higher sales simply because people who are working are making more money to spend. The multiplier effect takes care of the rest.

Higher paid Labor spends more of that money sooner rather than later.

And the newly unemployed labor spends less money, forever.

The fast food joint could see higher sales simply because people who are working are making more money to spend.

I agree, that's a money losing outcome.

Now, about your moronic claim about income tax revenue..........

 

[danielpalos]

Only in the short run, from a micro-economics perspective.

Increasing low-skilled unemployment AND reducing income tax revenue is only in the short run?

Please......continue.

lol. Higher paid Labor spends more of that money sooner rather than later. The fast food joint could see higher sales simply because people who are working are making more money to spend. The multiplier effect takes care of the rest.

Higher paid Labor spends more of that money sooner rather than later.

And the newly unemployed labor spends less money, forever.

The fast food joint could see higher sales simply because people who are working are making more money to spend.

I agree, that's a money losing outcome.

Now, about your moronic claim about income tax revenue..........

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax. Unemployment compensation helps minimize the impact from Labor no longer working, and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats and more employers will need to keep up with more demand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

 

[danielpalos]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate.

I'll go slowly, because you obviously don't understand math.

For every extra dollar that a minimum wage workers gets, they pay 10%-12% in additional federal income tax.

For every extra dollar that an employer pays, they save 21% federal corporate income tax.

Do you understand that the 21% reduction is larger than the 10%-12% increase?


Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

 

[danielpalos]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate.

I'll go slowly, because you obviously don't understand math.

For every extra dollar that a minimum wage workers gets, they pay 10%-12% in additional federal income tax.

For every extra dollar that an employer pays, they save 21% federal corporate income tax.

Do you understand that the 21% reduction is larger than the 10%-12% increase?


Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked. A 7.25 hourly rate generates around 193 dollars in federal income tax revenue. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582 dollars in federal income tax revenue, more than nine times more from each minimum wage worker working at the 15 dollar an hour rate. The employer could cut nine employees and the federal government would still get the same federal income tax revenue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate.

I'll go slowly, because you obviously don't understand math.

For every extra dollar that a minimum wage workers gets, they pay 10%-12% in additional federal income tax.

For every extra dollar that an employer pays, they save 21% federal corporate income tax.

Do you understand that the 21% reduction is larger than the 10%-12% increase?


Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked. A 7.25 hourly rate generates around 193 dollars in federal income tax revenue. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582 dollars in federal income tax revenue, more than nine times more from each minimum wage worker working at the 15 dollar an hour rate. The employer could cut nine employees and the federal government would still get the same federal income tax revenue.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked.

21% is actually larger than 10% and also larger than 12%. For realzz dog!

A 7.25 hourly rate

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $15,080

A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $31,200.
$16,120 more at $15.

193 dollars in federal income tax revenue.
A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582

Assuming those numbers are correct, $1,389 more federal income tax revenue at $15.

Now, the $16,120 increased expense to the employer, with a 21% corporate rate
gives them a tax reduction of $3385.20

No matter how much weed you're smoking, $3385.20 is still larger than $1389

 

[danielpalos]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate.

I'll go slowly, because you obviously don't understand math.

For every extra dollar that a minimum wage workers gets, they pay 10%-12% in additional federal income tax.

For every extra dollar that an employer pays, they save 21% federal corporate income tax.

Do you understand that the 21% reduction is larger than the 10%-12% increase?


Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked. A 7.25 hourly rate generates around 193 dollars in federal income tax revenue. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582 dollars in federal income tax revenue, more than nine times more from each minimum wage worker working at the 15 dollar an hour rate. The employer could cut nine employees and the federal government would still get the same federal income tax revenue.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked.

21% is actually larger than 10% and also larger than 12%. For realzz dog!

A 7.25 hourly rate

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $15,080

A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $31,200.
$16,120 more at $15.

193 dollars in federal income tax revenue.
A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582

Assuming those numbers are correct, $1,389 more federal income tax revenue at $15.

Now, the $16,120 increased expense to the employer, with a 21% corporate rate
gives them a tax reduction of $3385.20

No matter how much weed you're smoking, $3385.20 is still larger than $1389

More than nine times the amount from each minimum wage worker at the higher rate.

And, the cost of labor can be expensed by the employer regardless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate.

I'll go slowly, because you obviously don't understand math.

For every extra dollar that a minimum wage workers gets, they pay 10%-12% in additional federal income tax.

For every extra dollar that an employer pays, they save 21% federal corporate income tax.

Do you understand that the 21% reduction is larger than the 10%-12% increase?


Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked. A 7.25 hourly rate generates around 193 dollars in federal income tax revenue. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582 dollars in federal income tax revenue, more than nine times more from each minimum wage worker working at the 15 dollar an hour rate. The employer could cut nine employees and the federal government would still get the same federal income tax revenue.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked.

21% is actually larger than 10% and also larger than 12%. For realzz dog!

A 7.25 hourly rate

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $15,080

A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $31,200.
$16,120 more at $15.

193 dollars in federal income tax revenue.
A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582

Assuming those numbers are correct, $1,389 more federal income tax revenue at $15.

Now, the $16,120 increased expense to the employer, with a 21% corporate rate
gives them a tax reduction of $3385.20

No matter how much weed you're smoking, $3385.20 is still larger than $1389

More than nine times the amount from each minimum wage worker at the higher rate.

And, the cost of labor can be expensed by the employer regardless.

More than nine times the amount from each minimum wage worker at the higher rate.

Yup, $1389 more tax.

And, the cost of labor can be expensed by the employer regardless.

Yup, $3385.20 less tax.

DURR.

 

[jbrownson0831]

The minimum wage should be zero , I was just reading an article no where in the USA can a person afford a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage..so the $12 dollar minimum wage in Seattle is useless.

The minimum wage should be higher than the cost of social services, around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be eighteen dollars an hour, according some literature I have read.

You can read??

 

[danielpalos]

Those working pay several times more in federal income tax.

Which is more than offset by the reduction in corporate income tax paid.
Because 21% is still larger than 10% and still larger than 12%.
Even in your mom's basement.

and a multiplier effect means a rising tide lifts all boats

Only when you ignore the multiplier effect of reduced corporate spending.

Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

Not sure why you believe what you do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate. Thus, even if the employer cuts a few employees or hours the federal government will still receive as much or than they do now with the lower wage rate even with a few more people working. How many people can an employee cut and still keep up with demand; people now making fifteen an hour would have a higher propensity to consume at that wage rate than at the lower wage rate.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax than is generated by someone earning the 7.25 hourly wage rate.

I'll go slowly, because you obviously don't understand math.

For every extra dollar that a minimum wage workers gets, they pay 10%-12% in additional federal income tax.

For every extra dollar that an employer pays, they save 21% federal corporate income tax.

Do you understand that the 21% reduction is larger than the 10%-12% increase?


Just for fun, if a McDonald's raises an employee wage by $1000 and the employee
increases their purchase of McDonald's by $1000, is the net income of McDonald's
higher, the same or lower?

Give it your best calculation.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked. A 7.25 hourly rate generates around 193 dollars in federal income tax revenue. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582 dollars in federal income tax revenue, more than nine times more from each minimum wage worker working at the 15 dollar an hour rate. The employer could cut nine employees and the federal government would still get the same federal income tax revenue.

I would agree with you if that was how it actually worked.

21% is actually larger than 10% and also larger than 12%. For realzz dog!

A 7.25 hourly rate

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $15,080

A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage

Based on 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks a year......wages to the worker of $31,200.
$16,120 more at $15.

193 dollars in federal income tax revenue.
A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage generates around 1582

Assuming those numbers are correct, $1,389 more federal income tax revenue at $15.

Now, the $16,120 increased expense to the employer, with a 21% corporate rate
gives them a tax reduction of $3385.20

No matter how much weed you're smoking, $3385.20 is still larger than $1389

More than nine times the amount from each minimum wage worker at the higher rate.

And, the cost of labor can be expensed by the employer regardless.

More than nine times the amount from each minimum wage worker at the higher rate.

Yup, $1389 more tax.

And, the cost of labor can be expensed by the employer regardless.

Yup, $3385.20 less tax.

DURR.

The minimum wage doubled for that little bit more tax which funds Government.

1389 per minimum wage employee. Where are you getting your twenty-one percent reduction? And, why are you complaining if it is allegedly cheaper based on your tax estimates to pay the higher wage?