How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[danielpalos]

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Work harder for less.

 

[Dragonlady]

Understood, but you didn't answer my question. If pay needs to be increased indexed by the cost of living, who should be in charge of that? Who should have to pay for that?

I mean it's not like there needs to be a committee in charge or make need funds to do so.. As the minimum wage increases, the market will even out on its own, as people are spending more money, investing etc. But a rise that is adequate based on living costs is the goal- that is how people will begin to live over the poverty line working 40 hours a week.

Maybe, but what's more likely to happen is as the minimum wage increases, it makes automation investments more attractive to businesses. When it's cheaper to buy machines to do the work instead of humans, that's what industry will turn to. After all, most of our manufacturing jobs were not lost overseas,, they were lost to automation.

if they want to use machines they will regardless of a small bump in pay.

What you have to understand is that it's not a small bump in pay.

When your employer give you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him or her much more than that dollar. Your employer has to match your Medicare and SS contributions. A raise increases your contributions (and your employers). Your employers workman's compensation insurance gets more expensive because if you get hurt on the job, it's more money they have to pay you since you make more money. Same with Unemployment insurance. Then there is vacation and holiday pay. That's when your employer pays you and gets nothing in return.

So now you take that and multiply it by X amount of employees, and it's a very large expense for the employer. I won't even get into the healthcare thing or if you have a retirement plan with your employer that he contributes to.

Gee Ray, thanks, for "mansplaining" that for us. Except that you're wrong.

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

So the cost to the employer is NOT more than $1.00. In fact, if the employer is paying the full corporate rate of 35% income tax on profit, that raise is only going to cost the employer $0.65 per hour.

So it is completely false to say that a $1 an hour raise costs an employer more than $1 per hour per employee.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's hard to trust employers in America.

then be self employed so you can distrust yourself

Or you can regulate employers to do the right thing.

The right thing is advertising your job, taking applications, and make the offer to somebody that really wants the job. You can't get more right than that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We can start by offering free education in any field that pays well....
Younger poor should probably be required to be enrolled in such programs in order to require such skills to move out of poverty.

We make sure the old have their ssi that they have earned their entire lives so we don't have 10 times as many poor and far more problems.

We enforce anti-trust laws to stop big businesses from destroying competition so the little guy can build his business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Understood, but you didn't answer my question. If pay needs to be increased indexed by the cost of living, who should be in charge of that? Who should have to pay for that?

I mean it's not like there needs to be a committee in charge or make need funds to do so.. As the minimum wage increases, the market will even out on its own, as people are spending more money, investing etc. But a rise that is adequate based on living costs is the goal- that is how people will begin to live over the poverty line working 40 hours a week.

Maybe, but what's more likely to happen is as the minimum wage increases, it makes automation investments more attractive to businesses. When it's cheaper to buy machines to do the work instead of humans, that's what industry will turn to. After all, most of our manufacturing jobs were not lost overseas,, they were lost to automation.

if they want to use machines they will regardless of a small bump in pay.

What you have to understand is that it's not a small bump in pay.

When your employer give you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him or her much more than that dollar. Your employer has to match your Medicare and SS contributions. A raise increases your contributions (and your employers). Your employers workman's compensation insurance gets more expensive because if you get hurt on the job, it's more money they have to pay you since you make more money. Same with Unemployment insurance. Then there is vacation and holiday pay. That's when your employer pays you and gets nothing in return.

So now you take that and multiply it by X amount of employees, and it's a very large expense for the employer. I won't even get into the healthcare thing or if you have a retirement plan with your employer that he contributes to.

Gee Ray, thanks, for "mansplaining" that for us. Except that you're wrong.

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

So the cost to the employer is NOT more than $1.00. In fact, if the employer is paying the full corporate rate of 35% income tax on profit, that raise is only going to cost the employer $0.65 per hour.

So it is completely false to say that a $1 an hour raise costs an employer more than $1 per hour per employee.

No because a write-off is not that much. A write-off only means you don't pay taxes on that money because you used it to run your business.

I have over a hundred write-offs every year, and it helps, but many think a write-off means that the government gives you that money back. Nothing is further from the truth; I wish it was. So an employer may get something back for all is new costs, but again, it's not all that much, especially when you compare that to the expense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We can start by offering free education in any field that pays well....
Younger poor should probably be required to be enrolled in such programs in order to require such skills to move out of poverty.

We make sure the old have their ssi that they have earned their entire lives so we don't have 10 times as many poor and far more problems.

We enforce anti-trust laws to stop big businesses from destroying competition so the little guy can build his business.

And yet nobody has to pay for all these things. Isn't that amazing???

 

[Dragonlady]

I mean it's not like there needs to be a committee in charge or make need funds to do so.. As the minimum wage increases, the market will even out on its own, as people are spending more money, investing etc. But a rise that is adequate based on living costs is the goal- that is how people will begin to live over the poverty line working 40 hours a week.

Maybe, but what's more likely to happen is as the minimum wage increases, it makes automation investments more attractive to businesses. When it's cheaper to buy machines to do the work instead of humans, that's what industry will turn to. After all, most of our manufacturing jobs were not lost overseas,, they were lost to automation.

if they want to use machines they will regardless of a small bump in pay.

What you have to understand is that it's not a small bump in pay.

When your employer give you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him or her much more than that dollar. Your employer has to match your Medicare and SS contributions. A raise increases your contributions (and your employers). Your employers workman's compensation insurance gets more expensive because if you get hurt on the job, it's more money they have to pay you since you make more money. Same with Unemployment insurance. Then there is vacation and holiday pay. That's when your employer pays you and gets nothing in return.

So now you take that and multiply it by X amount of employees, and it's a very large expense for the employer. I won't even get into the healthcare thing or if you have a retirement plan with your employer that he contributes to.

Gee Ray, thanks, for "mansplaining" that for us. Except that you're wrong.

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

So the cost to the employer is NOT more than $1.00. In fact, if the employer is paying the full corporate rate of 35% income tax on profit, that raise is only going to cost the employer $0.65 per hour.

So it is completely false to say that a $1 an hour raise costs an employer more than $1 per hour per employee.

No because a write-off is not that much. A write-off only means you don't pay taxes on that money because you used it to run your business.

I have over a hundred write-offs every year, and it helps, but many think a write-off means that the government gives you that money back. Nothing is further from the truth; I wish it was. So an employer may get something back for all is new costs, but again, it's not all that much, especially when you compare that to the expense.

Ray, I'm finding it really hard to believe you own a business at all. Your ignorance is astounding. No one suggested that you get a refund on your deductions. That would be assinine. Companies don't get refunds on expenses, and only someone who doesn't work in business would even suggest this was a possibility.

I worked my entire career in law and banking Ray. I know how it works. You deduct ALL OF YOUR EXPENSES related to your employees from your revenues, and you pay tax on the profit. Every dollar of deductions, reduces your corporate tax payable by 35%.

If you give your employee a $1.00 an hour raise, that $1 comes out of profits, and is not taxable. Had you not given the raise, you would have paid 35 cents of that $1 to the government in taxes, so you would have only kept 65 cents of that $1.00 for yourself anyway. So you reduce your taxes by 35 cents, add your 65 cents to it and give your employee a $1.00 an hour raise.

Hope that notion isn't too complicated for your simple little mind.

 

[OnePercenter]

Or you can regulate employers to do the right thing.

Who gets to dictate what the "right" thing is? You?

Where do you or anyone derive the power to tell employers what to do?

Ninety-five percent of employers will fuck you over any chance they get.

Why do we have illegal immigrants? Employers pay them.

Pay your employer for healthcare? It goes to his/her vacation fund.

I have a friend that owns an Olive Garden. An ice machine shorts out causing a fire closing his restaurant for a month. His business interruption insurance pay him AND his employees. He strong arms his employees to work at different restaurants that he owns and pockets their pay from insurance.

Employers/corporations are necessary evils that shouldn't be trusted.

 

[MaryL]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Tax income proportionally. And income level shouldn't dictate morals or laws. This Is a Democratic republic, our laws should reflect the wishes of all of us collectively.

 

[OnePercenter]

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

 

[Dragonlady]

And here's another thing Ray:

When companies pay their employees a living wage, one which would mean that their employees would no longer qualify for Section 8, SNAP, Medicaid, or other government programs, it will reduce your taxes, since all working Americans would be ineligible for these supplements.

With millions of Americans no longer receiving government assistance, fewer government workers will be required to process public assistance applicants, and review and means test them, and still other workers to issue checks or electronic debit cards.

So by simply refusing to let corporations subsidize their employees' wages with government programs, you can reduce the number of welfare recipients, reduce the size of government, and reduce your personal and corporate tax bills - twice over.

By no, you'd rather whine about the poor and all the social programs, instead of making the most profitable corporations on the planet pay their own damn employees.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.

The rich are worse

Our poor suck the most government tit.

The rich are worse

Our poor commits the most crime.

The rich are worse

Our poor does the most drugs.

The rich are worse

Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.

The rich are worse

Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.

The rich are worse

let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

It's not deflection if it is true. The rich raise sniveling entitled brats. They recieve more subsidies and breaks than everyone else. Most of them do cocaine and other hard drugs. They destroy ecosystems to put up their luxury mansions and mega-malls. They consume and monopolize the most resources. They slaughter trillions of animals each year to package into food products and market to fat American consumers.

Just the facts.

The rich sustain the poor and keep what is most important to your ass. You can only demonize them so much because at the end of the day, your masters depend on them as well. That said, I don't begrudge the poor......I begrudge the elite that depend on their plight for power......aka your masters, The Liberal Elite.

 

[MaryL]

I am so disgusted with Americans right now...On one hand, exploit the poor poor Mexican illegals, and on the other hand pretend it's a humanist thing, but on the other hand ignore and pretend it's about immigration, but on the other hand be cynical about exploitation when it comes to politics or race. I have had it! Which is it? Exploitation is OK...remind me again, what's the alternative?

 

[Onyx]

The rich sustain the poor and keep what is most important to your ass.

That's what you have been brainwashed to believe. It's actually the other way around.

 

[BrokeLoser]

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Every small business in the country barely making a profit and or breaking even.
Do you think there are any of those?

 

[LeftofLeft]

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Bernie Sanders For President

Bernie Sanders Supports $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Interns $12 Per Hour

 

[BrokeLoser]

Poverty in the US is a mixture of laziness and irresponsibility; two things that don't go well for creating a future for yourself. It's up to the individual to get over both those hurdles--not the taxpayer.

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs designed for high school kids and the brainless.
If 35 year old Juan and Guadalupe weren't trying to make burger flipping a lifelong career we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Would this be an issue if we sent 10 million or so Juan's and Guadalupe's home?

 

[LeftofLeft]

The rich sustain the poor and keep what is most important to your ass.

That's what you have been brainwashed to believe. It's actually the other way around.

Dubois depended on people like you and Booker T. Washington warned US about people like you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And here's another thing Ray:

When companies pay their employees a living wage, one which would mean that their employees would no longer qualify for Section 8, SNAP, Medicaid, or other government programs, it will reduce your taxes, since all working Americans would be ineligible for these supplements.

With millions of Americans no longer receiving government assistance, fewer government workers will be required to process public assistance applicants, and review and means test them, and still other workers to issue checks or electronic debit cards.

So by simply refusing to let corporations subsidize their employees' wages with government programs, you can reduce the number of welfare recipients, reduce the size of government, and reduce your personal and corporate tax bills - twice over.

By no, you'd rather whine about the poor and all the social programs, instead of making the most profitable corporations on the planet pay their own damn employees.

I have no idea where you on the left figured that it's the employers that are charged with this social obligation you constantly speak of. A business opens up and stays open for one reason only, and that is to produce a product(s) or service for a profit. They have no obligation to anything else.

A living wage........a living wage.....just what is a living wage anyway? Wouldn't a living wage depend on the person making those wages? After all, a 19 year old living with her parents has a much different living wage than a 25 year old with three kids and an apartment to pay rent on.

People would get off of social programs if wages were better? Where is your proof of that? Because I have experience that says people on social programs deliberately keep their income down to continue receiving those benefits. Pay them more money, they will work less hours or not as many days.

We would both like the same things for workers, but have a different view of how to achieve those goals. My way is for the individual to make themselves worth more money, and your way is for government to make them worth more money so the individual doesn't have to do anything for themselves.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Maybe, but what's more likely to happen is as the minimum wage increases, it makes automation investments more attractive to businesses. When it's cheaper to buy machines to do the work instead of humans, that's what industry will turn to. After all, most of our manufacturing jobs were not lost overseas,, they were lost to automation.

if they want to use machines they will regardless of a small bump in pay.

What you have to understand is that it's not a small bump in pay.

When your employer give you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him or her much more than that dollar. Your employer has to match your Medicare and SS contributions. A raise increases your contributions (and your employers). Your employers workman's compensation insurance gets more expensive because if you get hurt on the job, it's more money they have to pay you since you make more money. Same with Unemployment insurance. Then there is vacation and holiday pay. That's when your employer pays you and gets nothing in return.

So now you take that and multiply it by X amount of employees, and it's a very large expense for the employer. I won't even get into the healthcare thing or if you have a retirement plan with your employer that he contributes to.

Gee Ray, thanks, for "mansplaining" that for us. Except that you're wrong.

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

So the cost to the employer is NOT more than $1.00. In fact, if the employer is paying the full corporate rate of 35% income tax on profit, that raise is only going to cost the employer $0.65 per hour.

So it is completely false to say that a $1 an hour raise costs an employer more than $1 per hour per employee.

No because a write-off is not that much. A write-off only means you don't pay taxes on that money because you used it to run your business.

I have over a hundred write-offs every year, and it helps, but many think a write-off means that the government gives you that money back. Nothing is further from the truth; I wish it was. So an employer may get something back for all is new costs, but again, it's not all that much, especially when you compare that to the expense.

Ray, I'm finding it really hard to believe you own a business at all. Your ignorance is astounding. No one suggested that you get a refund on your deductions. That would be assinine. Companies don't get refunds on expenses, and only someone who doesn't work in business would even suggest this was a possibility.

I worked my entire career in law and banking Ray. I know how it works. You deduct ALL OF YOUR EXPENSES related to your employees from your revenues, and you pay tax on the profit. Every dollar of deductions, reduces your corporate tax payable by 35%.

If you give your employee a $1.00 an hour raise, that $1 comes out of profits, and is not taxable. Had you not given the raise, you would have paid 35 cents of that $1 to the government in taxes, so you would have only kept 65 cents of that $1.00 for yourself anyway. So you reduce your taxes by 35 cents, add your 65 cents to it and give your employee a $1.00 an hour raise.

Hope that notion isn't too complicated for your simple little mind.

You're definitely not the self-proclaimed business Econ whiz you think you are as you clearly don't understand common business strategy and or tax code exploitation...I'll make this brief.
Ray was referring to the employer paid tax expense associated to paying that extra $1.00 such as social security, medicare, unemployment and workers comp. That $1.00 raise will amount to much more than that to the employer.
Beyond that, If I choose to give a raise it's usually to employees who play a "key role" in growing and developing my business...this is almost never the floor sweeper guy...you pay brainless employees a brainless wage...PERIOD!
OR, I could reinvest that dollar you speak of back in my business for a greater deduction value. Marketing, advertising, supplies, materials, equipment...etc etc.
Further, no corp in their right mind pays 35% in income tax as most are either S Corps or LLC's which pass income through to shareholders and C Corps see to it the corp is broke at the close of the tax year.
Try again please.