Hypothetical Question (Minimum Wage) (tax, money, salaries, cost)

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by Justin Scott

Let's say the Federal Government cut Corporate Taxes to 0% and mandated a minimum wage of $24 per hour for large corporations and $15 per hour for small businesses. Both would increase with future inflation. Is this something that could potentially work? Keep in mind that the Corporate Tax would be cut to 0% so inflation would probably be minimal and other jobs would be created because there would be more money, etc.

what's the logic and justification of “a minimum wage of $24 per hour for large corporations and $15 per hour for small businesses”?

Justin Scott, how do you relate the Federal Minimum Wage and the Corporate Tax rates to each other? Why should reducing one and increasing the other be justified? I don't perceive your logic.

[JonathanLB]

I don’t get the concept that any business is evil if they pay their employees as little as possible. My job as a business owner is to navigate the waters of what I’m offering and figure out what I can afford to pay. If I paid our contractors poorly, I get the lower skilled ones. We have done that before because that’s called running a business. A cheap but enormous company came to me and said they’d only do business if we could make packages for $550 and $750, which is way below what we wanted to do. We figured out they would accept mediocre to subpar quality if we could deliver something solid enough, which we usually could. So we paid for contractors and got quality anywhere from poor to amazing (luckily, it happened a few times with people willing to fill an empty day with something rather than nothing). I couldn’t turn down that client because they had volume of 500-600 at those prices.

In general, we have certain quality standards now (that was many years ago) and know what we have to pay to get that quality. I wouldn’t just randomly pay more money. Especially because your little fantasy land isn’t reality. I haven’t made more than anyone for the last two years, actually zero. That’s what I’ve made. Nothing. It has all been reinvested into the business and went to employees and contractors. That’s business. I’m not complaining. But neither should an employee complain that I want to pay as little as possible so I can eventually benefit and win on my risk, too. Employees don’t take risks, therefore they don’t share in rewards. If they did, they’d be partners. I would be happy to do that too, you work for me for free for 3 years while we start a new company and we’ll split the profits if we ever have them. PS: You also owe half of the startup and ongoing costs, of course.

People don’t take that option because they can’t afford to make zero money and maybe lose money for years on end. That’s why they’re employees and that’s why successful business owners make the big money. The reality is though most businesses fail.

[SportyandMisty]

Businesses and Corporations do not bear the burden of taxes - only people do. Every penny of tax levied upon a corporation is passed along to actual people in the form of:

• customers face prices higher than they otherwise would be
• employees see wages (and total hours worked) lower than they otherwise would be
• business owners, including individual shareholders and pension plans, receive profits lower than they otherwise would be.

By reducing corporate and business taxes to zero, there would be a MASSIVE influx of foreign businesses relocating to the USA to escape confiscatory taxes in other countries.

By reducing corporate taxes to zero, everyone is better off (customers, employees, shareholders) with the exception of future unemployed tax lawyers, tax accountants and IRS employees. But don't fear for those people; they are smart and adaptable and could have exciting careers in the fast food preparation and motel housekeeping industries.

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by JonathanLB

I don’t get the concept that any business is evil if they pay their employees as little as possible....

JonathanLB, to the extent that our federal minimum wage's purchasing power's insufficient to better serve our economy, is consequentially an evil; To the extent that our laws do not automatically retain the minimum rate's purchasing power, further compounds that evil; the consequential affects due to USA's chronic annual trade deficits is evil. These are evil because consequentially they more or less generally demean employees and the values of their labor.

Employers alone did not create their nation's financial and economic environment. I did not contend acting in self-interest is evil; I stated that efforts to demean others are generally evil acts.

[Thatsright19]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Businesses and Corporations do not bear the burden of taxes - only people do. Every penny of tax levied upon a corporation is passed along to actual people in the form of:

• customers face prices higher than they otherwise would be
• employees see wages (and total hours worked) lower than they otherwise would be
• business owners, including individual shareholders and pension plans, receive profits lower than they otherwise would be.

By reducing corporate taxes to zero, everyone is better off (customers, employees, shareholders) with the exception of future unemployed tax lawyers, tax accountants and IRS employees. But don't worry about those people; they could have exciting careers in the fast food preparation and motel housekeeping industries.

For those who fail to retain, infancy is eternal.

Timing of when you’re taxed matters. Time value of money matters. Until you grasp that simple concept, you’ll continue to copy and paste nonsense that would have you laughed out of the Congress if actually proposed as a “solution”.

[steveklein]

Originally Posted by craigiri

I can answer that that. It doesn't. This is exactly why wages have gone nowhere in 40+ years.

No. The major reason wages for the bottom 50% of earners have gone nowhere in 40 years (and the number of people collecting welfare has risen dramatically) is because over the last 40 years, a glut of unskilled labor has entered our country illegally.

But if believing your narrative that because billionaires who pay far more in taxes than you and I, and whose companies create tens of thousands of jobs is the reason wages have gone nowhere, is what lets you sleep at night, then sweet dreams.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by steveklein

No. The major reason wages for the bottom 50% of earners have gone nowhere in 40 years
is because over the last 40 years, a glut of unskilled labor has entered our country illegally.

Not quite. The major reason are the homegrown horde of unskilled labor.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Justin Scott

Let's say the Federal Government cut Corporate Taxes to 0% and mandated a minimum wage of $24 per hour for large corporations and $15 per hour for small businesses. Both would increase with future inflation.

Both would cause Inflation.

Your understanding of "Inflation" is incredibly poor.

Monetary Inflation occurs when the amount of money exceeds GDP. There are too many Dollars chasing too few goods. The price of everything, meaning every thing, as in every single thing, including wages, rise uniformly at the rate of Monetary Inflation.

Monetary Inflation, when it is rampant, may be resolved through a single action or combination of actions: decreasing government spending, increasing taxes or raising interest rates.

Monetary Inflation is not an issue in the US. The rate of Monetary Inflation since 1990 has been 0.0% to 0.5% annually on average. Your wages have risen accordingly, and it is a non-factor.

What is a factor is Demand-pull Inflation.

Demand-pull Inflation is caused by Demand increasing faster than Supply, resulting in price increases. This is most obviously seen in housing in a handful of US cities, and in certain energy prices, namely gasoline prices, because the Demand for oil is greater than the Supply.

When you read the reports, it states energy prices have risen, then states the price of gasoline has increased, while the price of other energy, like electric, home heating oil and natural gas have remained flat or actually declined.

That is irrefutable proof of the absence of Monetary Inflation.

If Monetary Inflation existed, then the price of electric, home heating oil and natural gas would have risen, and they would have risen uniformly at the rate of Monetary Inflation.

Some food prices have risen, while others have not. Again, proof of the absence of Monetary Inflation, but proof of the existence of Demand-pull Inflation.

There are only two solutions for Demand-pull Inflation: stop consuming, or increase Supply.

If price increases due to Demand-pull Inflation are affecting people, then Demand-pull Inflation is working as it should. It's purpose is to prevent the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services.

Increasing wages to match Demand-pull Inflation is incredibly stupid, because the only thing that happens is prices rise that much higher, that much faster.

If people can't purchase certain things, then they need to make adjustments to their Life-Style and Standard of Living, which is exactly how Demand-pull Inflation works.

Another form of Inflation is Wage Inflation, which causes rising prices.

Raising the minimum wage to $24/hour for some companies and $15/hour for small businesses, would create Wage Inflation. Prices would rise accordingly, and you'd be in the exact same position you are now. Wage Inflation occurred twice in US history, and in both cases, FDR and Nixon levied Wage & Price Freezes, in order to stop rapidly rising prices.

There's no possible way to win, so it's best to just learn how to deal with it.

The other form of Inflation is Cost-push Inflation. It occurs when government levies regulations on business and industry that increase costs, and result in price increases. Often, they result in a one-time only price jump, but in many other instances, it results in recurring price increases.

That is the case with healthcare. Every time government requires health plan providers to cover another malady or medical condition, the price of health plan coverage increases.

In Ohio, Cost-push Inflation has been devastating on child care. People were paying $1,800 to $2,000 annually for child care costs, but after the State enacted a law requiring child care workers to have a college degree -- an Associate Degree suffices -- it dramatically increased the cost of child care, so that it costs only a few $100 less than full-time tuition at a major university in Ohio, which is about $9,800 annually.

The first thing that happened was the Supply of Labor for childcare workers was slashed by more than 95%. You can no longer pay minimum wage for child care workers, you now have to pay $12-$15/hour. Few people have the money, the time or the interest to spend 2 or more years to get an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Education to work at a day-care facility, and even those that do often do not qualify for admission to a 2-year or technical college, or drop out for any number of reasons.

Another thing you seem to be ignorant about is wage costs are only one component of labor costs.

Labor Costs = Wage Cost + Benefit Cost + Government Mandated Costs

Government mandated costs include the employer's share of FICA, HI (Medicare), SUTA, FUTA, worker's compensation, and other mandated government costs.

Originally Posted by craigiri

Those wages, adjusted for basic inflation, would be $23 to $27 an hour today.

Only dishonest people "adjust for Inflation," and there's no such thing as "basic inflation."

[Zymer]

If corporate taxes were cut to zero, who would pay for all of the things that corporate taxes are paying for now?

Originally Posted by Merkin

With higher personal income taxes.

Sure. You think that *all* of the monies currently paid in corporate income taxes would trickle down to the employees? (Not gonna happen, not on this planet anyway.) How well does/has 'trickle down economics worked in the past?

Even if that *did* happen, there would be a net gain of zero- even if all of the monies paid in corporate taxes were instead paid to employees, and the personal tax rates were increased to keep the revenue at the same point, it would change absolutely nothing. The only difference would be in whose name is on the check to the IRS. Do you really believe something so silly? Obviously, you haven't thought this out very well.

Corporate taxes are irrelevant when they pay out in salaries and bonuses.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

[Merkin]

How well does/has 'trickle down economics worked in the past?

I have no idea, we never had real trickle down economics, the government gives more money to people than corporations.

Also we have been running the same economic policy for the last 30+ years, I'm sure our qualify of life has improved.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

I recommend you should spend some time learning how corporate taxes and expense works.

I bet the 300 Billion dollars Apple holds overseas is doing us good...