$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has no multiplier.

unemployment is funded by taxes charged by the state and federal governments each business pays based on its payroll and on the number of claims filed for each business.

That money is taken out of the economy and held by the government.

When that money is paid in UE benefits it is LESS than what the person was making while employed and is not magically multiplied.

So in reality that money is taken out of the economy and held where it can offer no benefit to the economy then if it is paid out not all of it is put back into the economy so it's actually a net loss of economic opportunity

It had a measurable effect on gdp at the macro level. And, you are incorrect in thinking that money was taken out of the economy. Employers were not taxed for it. Everyone pays for it after the fact from any usual and customary inflation.

It had a measurable effect on gdp at the macro level

Yes, the effect is reduced GDP.

 

[Blues Man]

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

From the article you linked:
...
The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your pocket, puts that dollar through the political process and decides where to spend it (based on input from special interest groups), the economy will somehow return more money in growth than the money invested, even after Washington bureaucrats take their cut. It's magic! Sadly, these arguments ignore recent empirical evidence that the costs of increased government spending far outweigh the benefits to the economy....

It describes the crowding out effect rather than the multiplier effect, and it would be true if it was actually, crowding out those dollars that would have been spent by the private sector. The usual case for many firms is to try to reduce their tax burden by finding tax havens instead of actually spending the money on raising wages.

It depends on the policy. In the case of increasing the minimum wage, it is not coming from taxes levied but being paid in the usual and customary manner of the private sector, and then spent by all those individuals now making the higher minimum wage. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue, ceteris paribus.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

you have been saying all along that government welfare or unemployment is multiplied. You are wrong just admit it.

Means tested welfare has a lower multiplier than unmployment compensation. Some articles I have read stated a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending but a multiplier of 2 for unemployment compensation. A market based metric for public policy decisions under Capitalism?

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.--https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

It has no multiplier.

unemployment is funded by taxes charged by the state and federal governments each business pays based on its payroll and on the number of claims filed for each business.

That money is taken out of the economy and held by the government.

When that money is paid in UE benefits it is LESS than what the person was making while employed and is not magically multiplied.

So in reality that money is taken out of the economy and held where it can offer no benefit to the economy then if it is paid out not all of it is put back into the economy so it's actually a net loss of economic opportunity

Bullcrap a dollar spent by the government drives the econimy just as much as a dollar spent by a indevidual.

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

and the price of their products has no bearing on what your employer pays you.

My income has never been reduced because some CEO got a pay raise and neither has yours.

You simply are the normal mullet brained Corporate puppet reading word for word off their script.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

Garbage , their are many

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

Where's your calculation for the opportunity cost you've imposed with all the new taxes required to fund the massive new welfare program you've created?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

You simply appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect.

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Garbage there are many different kinds of money multipliers , every economist in this country is laughing at you. One of the basic backbones of capitalism, Actual any economy.

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

Hay you said it didn't exist loser, and it does and every economists that exist talks about it, You can't bullshit your way out of this. You said there was no money multiplier, You admit that you were wrong and I won't make a laughing stock out of your make believe knowledge on this. You can't hide from this its your own words . You don't know what you are talking about,

You were using it wrong.

There is no multiplier in raising the MW or in government spending.

So as you and the other guy are using the term is wrong.

and I still never said it existed I merely corrected your error on how economists define it

Bullshit Daniel explained very accurately what a multipliers is and what it does, and you said Quote"
There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters" so bullshit, you wrote it down and we know what you were responding to and we know you are trying to bullshit your way out of it now.. I won't let you, simply say you were wrong and we can move on from this otherwise it is the only remark from you that exists.What a hoot!

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.

Bullshit were do you get this crap, even printed money by the government has a multiplier. Any money sitting anywhere reintroduced to the economy drives the market and has a multiplayer . Money given to big b and put under the mattress once introduced back into the economy has a multiplier. Printed money lowers the value of the money in the world market , increasing exports , increase jobs, increasing pay, increasing income.

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.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Yes, there is a multiplier. An increased velocity of money contributes to the multiplier. More people spending more money contributes to both the velocity of money and the multiplier. Thus, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Multiplier: What It Means in Finance and Economics

A multiplier refers to an economic input that amplifies the effect of some other variable.

www.investopedia.com

There is no multiplier never has been never will be.

And FYI taxes reduce the velocity of money they don't increase it.

So more tax revenue does nothing for the economy.

That is just you appealing to ignorance of economics. It is why it can be soo difficult to take right wingers seriously.

And, tax generation is being increased by higher paid labor paying more in taxes and creating more in demand (and adding to the velocity of money circulating). The virtual doubling of the minimum wage means all those people that had less to spend before will have more to spend and be taxed on now. People making thirty thousand dollars per year actually pay taxes (approximately $2000 according to Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax ) on that income and individuals no longer qualify for the earned income credit at that higher wage rate (Earned Income Tax Credit Calculator - EIC).

Taxes do not add to the velocity of money.

This is what adds to the velocity of money:

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

It is taxes levied on the increased earnings that will increase tax revenue because higher paid labor generates more Tax revenue and creates more demand.

Well then workers won't really see a 64 billion increase because taxes will eat into it and therefore the velocity of that money is reduced.

That can't be true since people seeing their wages increase from around 15 thousand per year to 30 thousand per year won't be paying fifteen thousand per year in taxes. Anything less than having to pay 15 thousand per year in taxes means labor will have more money to spend and create demand.

Taxes from 30 thousand per year would be around 2 thousand for that tax year versus not paying taxes on 15 thousand per year and qualifying for the earned income tax credit of a few hundred dollars per tax year.

No crowding out involved only the multiplier.

Some will have a little more money and some will lose their jobs.


The thing is it's the people making 7.25 that will lose their jobs not the person making 10 or 12 an hour now.

 

[danielpalos]

It has no multiplier.

unemployment is funded by taxes charged by the state and federal governments each business pays based on its payroll and on the number of claims filed for each business.

That money is taken out of the economy and held by the government.

When that money is paid in UE benefits it is LESS than what the person was making while employed and is not magically multiplied.

So in reality that money is taken out of the economy and held where it can offer no benefit to the economy then if it is paid out not all of it is put back into the economy so it's actually a net loss of economic opportunity

It had a measurable effect on gdp at the macro level. And, you are incorrect in thinking that money was taken out of the economy. Employers were not taxed for it. Everyone pays for it after the fact from any usual and customary inflation.

It had a measurable effect on gdp at the macro level

Yes, the effect is reduced GDP.

That was a projection not an actual occurrence as was actually measured with unemployment compensation.

And, the projection is either short term or it is not rational since 64 billion in increased real earnings must have some effect on economic activity in a positive not negative manner.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[Blues Man]

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

 

[Blues Man]

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

 

[danielpalos]

Some will have a little more money and some will lose their jobs.

The thing is it's the people making 7.25 that will lose their jobs not the person making 10 or 12 an hour now.

You would be more convincing if Capitalists were not willing to downsize merely for the bottom line and affecting more than just minimum wage workers.

And, virtually doubling real earnings is more than just a little more money. And, all those still employed will be generating more tax revenue. Approximately $2000 per individual versus no income taxes generated and some earned income credit for labor at the current wage rate.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[Blues Man]

Some will have a little more money and some will lose their jobs.

The thing is it's the people making 7.25 that will lose their jobs not the person making 10 or 12 an hour now.

You would be more convincing if Capitalists were not willing to downsize merely for the bottom line and affecting more than just minimum wage workers.

And, virtually doubling real earnings is more than just a little more money. And, all those still employed will be generating more tax revenue. Approximately $2000 per individual versus no income taxes generated and some earned income credit for labor at the current wage rate.

What fantasy world do you live in where a business won't downsize if they can?

And earnings will not be doubled because the people most likely to lose their jobs are the ones making 7.25 an hour. The people making 10 or more an hour will not lose their jobs.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was a projection

Yes, a negative projection, not the positive one you falsely or ignorantly claimed it was.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some will have a little more money and some will lose their jobs.

The thing is it's the people making 7.25 that will lose their jobs not the person making 10 or 12 an hour now.

You would be more convincing if Capitalists were not willing to downsize merely for the bottom line and affecting more than just minimum wage workers.

And, virtually doubling real earnings is more than just a little more money. And, all those still employed will be generating more tax revenue. Approximately $2000 per individual versus no income taxes generated and some earned income credit for labor at the current wage rate.

And, virtually doubling real earnings is more than just a little more money.

The increase averages about $600 per family. Far from doubling real family income.

And, all those still employed will be generating more tax revenue.

Which is less than the reduction in corporate tax revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[jbander]

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

From the article you linked:
...
The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your pocket, puts that dollar through the political process and decides where to spend it (based on input from special interest groups), the economy will somehow return more money in growth than the money invested, even after Washington bureaucrats take their cut. It's magic! Sadly, these arguments ignore recent empirical evidence that the costs of increased government spending far outweigh the benefits to the economy....

It describes the crowding out effect rather than the multiplier effect, and it would be true if it was actually, crowding out those dollars that would have been spent by the private sector. The usual case for many firms is to try to reduce their tax burden by finding tax havens instead of actually spending the money on raising wages.

It depends on the policy. In the case of increasing the minimum wage, it is not coming from taxes levied but being paid in the usual and customary manner of the private sector, and then spent by all those individuals now making the higher minimum wage. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue, ceteris paribus.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

you have been saying all along that government welfare or unemployment is multiplied. You are wrong just admit it.

Means tested welfare has a lower multiplier than unmployment compensation. Some articles I have read stated a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending but a multiplier of 2 for unemployment compensation. A market based metric for public policy decisions under Capitalism?

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.--https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

It has no multiplier.

unemployment is funded by taxes charged by the state and federal governments each business pays based on its payroll and on the number of claims filed for each business.

That money is taken out of the economy and held by the government.

When that money is paid in UE benefits it is LESS than what the person was making while employed and is not magically multiplied.

So in reality that money is taken out of the economy and held where it can offer no benefit to the economy then if it is paid out not all of it is put back into the economy so it's actually a net loss of economic opportunity

Bullcrap a dollar spent by the government drives the econimy just as much as a dollar spent by a indevidual.

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

and the price of their products has no bearing on what your employer pays you.

My income has never been reduced because some CEO got a pay raise and neither has yours.

You simply are the normal mullet brained Corporate puppet reading word for word off their script.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

Garbage , their are many

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

Where's your calculation for the opportunity cost you've imposed with all the new taxes required to fund the massive new welfare program you've created?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

You simply appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect.

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Garbage there are many different kinds of money multipliers , every economist in this country is laughing at you. One of the basic backbones of capitalism, Actual any economy.

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

Hay you said it didn't exist loser, and it does and every economists that exist talks about it, You can't bullshit your way out of this. You said there was no money multiplier, You admit that you were wrong and I won't make a laughing stock out of your make believe knowledge on this. You can't hide from this its your own words . You don't know what you are talking about,

You were using it wrong.

There is no multiplier in raising the MW or in government spending.

So as you and the other guy are using the term is wrong.

and I still never said it existed I merely corrected your error on how economists define it

Bullshit Daniel explained very accurately what a multipliers is and what it does, and you said Quote"
There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters" so bullshit, you wrote it down and we know what you were responding to and we know you are trying to bullshit your way out of it now.. I won't let you, simply say you were wrong and we can move on from this otherwise it is the only remark from you that exists.What a hoot!

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.

Bullshit were do you get this crap, even printed money by the government has a multiplier. Any money sitting anywhere reintroduced to the economy drives the market and has a multiplayer . Money given to big b and put under the mattress once introduced back into the economy has a multiplier. Printed money lowers the value of the money in the world market , increasing exports , increase jobs, increasing pay, increasing income.

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.

Boy you hve no clue , printing money isn't generally even printed , its electronic and it isn't tax money. You have no idea what you are talking about. One more time" Any money sitting anywhere reintroduced to the economy drives the market and has a multiplayer."

 

[jbander]

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,

 

[jbander]

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.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

It always raises more tax revenue,

No it doesn't.