Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

 

[Supposn]

I would suppose any reduction of taxable incomes due to increasing minimum wage rate’s purchasing power, would be more than offset by the net economic consequences of minimum rate’s accomplishing its purpose.

The CBO disagrees.

ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate, describe their projected consequences of minimum rate’s purchasing power increases upon families’ rather than upon wage earners’ incomes.
Although their reports understate minimum rate’s proportional benefits to wage rates and wage incomes, CBO’s reports certainly do by implication support the statement, “to the extent of minimum rate’s purchasing power and enforcement, it reduces incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor and their dependents”.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would suppose any reduction of taxable incomes due to increasing minimum wage rate’s purchasing power, would be more than offset by the net economic consequences of minimum rate’s accomplishing its purpose.

The CBO disagrees.

ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate, describe their projected consequences of minimum rate’s purchasing power increases upon families’ rather than upon wage earners’ incomes.
Although their reports understate minimum rate’s proportional benefits to wage rates and wage incomes, CBO’s reports certainly do by implication support the statement, “to the extent of minimum rate’s purchasing power and enforcement, it reduces incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor and their dependents”.
Respectfully, Supposn

You said "would be more than offset by the net economic consequences"

Did you already forget what your CBO link said?

I wouldn't blame you if you did. Especially after I used it to refute your original claim.

 

[Supposn]

You said "would be more than offset by the net economic consequences"
Did you already forget what your CBO link said?
I wouldn't blame you if you did. Especially after I used it to refute your original claim.

ToddsterPatriot, I cannot guess what your inexplicit post’s referring to. I’m leaving now. If you explicitly respond, I’ll later consider your correcting response. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said "would be more than offset by the net economic consequences"
Did you already forget what your CBO link said?
I wouldn't blame you if you did. Especially after I used it to refute your original claim.

ToddsterPatriot, I cannot guess what your inexplicit post’s referring to. I’m leaving now. If you explicitly respond, I’ll later consider your correcting response. Respectfully, Supposn

You said "would be more than offset by the net economic consequences"

I cannot guess what your inexplicit post’s referring to.

Your previous claim that an increase in the minimum wage to $15 would be a net economic benefit.

You posted a link to the CBO and everything.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Remember yet?

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor

The point is if employers have less money to invest in new equipment (or new locations),
the multiplied loss dwarfs your positive multiplier from (fewer) minimum wage workers
taking home more money.

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor

The point is if employers have less money to invest in new equipment (or new locations),
the multiplied loss dwarfs your positive multiplier from (fewer) minimum wage workers
taking home more money.

People merely making more money increases demand, especially at the bottom. And, employers can expense the Cost of Labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor

The point is if employers have less money to invest in new equipment (or new locations),
the multiplied loss dwarfs your positive multiplier from (fewer) minimum wage workers
taking home more money.

People merely making more money increases demand, especially at the bottom. And, employers can expense the Cost of Labor.

You're lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

You lied. Liar.

 

[Supposn]

... You said "would be more than offset by the net economic consequences"
Your previous claim that an increase in the minimum wage to $15 would be a net economic benefit.
You posted a link to the CBO and everything.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Remember yet?

ToddsterPatriot, you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to. I cannot guess what in context to that unidentified post, you find problematic? Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... You said "would be more than offset by the net economic consequences"
Your previous claim that an increase in the minimum wage to $15 would be a net economic benefit.
You posted a link to the CBO and everything.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Remember yet?

ToddsterPatriot, you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to. I cannot guess what in context to that unidentified post, you find problematic? Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault? Respectfully, Supposn

you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to.

“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages.

Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault?

At fault? Hardly.

Just an earlier example of an erroneous claim you made about net benefits.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

The federal income tax is the only progressive tax we have and is about equal in proceeds with payroll tax. It is a GOP obsession in its propaganda, but if you count all taxes everyone in the country is paying about 27% if they make any money, and even the poorest are paying about 20% and more if you include the ridiculous fees we have to pay these days period no sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying their fair share, brainwashed functional moron.


So why are we the only modern country without a living wage healthcare daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training, and ID card to end illegal immigration like every other modern country you already has, super duper? People did not just magically get stupid and lazy, it's all about ridiculously expensive college and training and crappy jobs. Thanks GOP!

Right wingers prefer their bigotry and to sling ad hominems instead of coming up with any valid arguments for rebuttal. In right wing fantasy, they are Always Right simply because they are on the right wing.

They have their own imaginary Rupert Murdoch etc planet. They have to be politically ignorant to fall for that.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, you have yet to provide a link to my post you’re referring to. I cannot guess what in context to that unidentified post, you find problematic? Why you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to. Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault? Respectfully, Supposn

you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to.
“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages. ...
... Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault?
At fault? Hardly.
Just an earlier example of an erroneous claim you made about net benefits.

Toddsterpatriot, your post does not answer the questions I asked. You're unable or unwilling to provide a link to the my post you’re referring to? You're unable or unwilling to explain what fault you find within that unidentified post?

Yes, I will stipulate an increase of $64 and a decrease of $20 billion is a net increase. Are you quoting from a particular page of a particular Congressional Budget Office's report? I cannot comment further until you respond more specifically. Respectfully, Supposn