minimum

You probably think of the money in your retirement accounts as yours, but if you have traditional IRAs or 401(k)s, it’s not that straightforward. You owe the IRS a cut of your savings, and at a certain point, it forces you to start taking required minimum distributions (RMDs). These are mandatory annual withdrawals that you must pay taxes on.

If you’re new to RMDs, they can seem a little intimidating. Failing to withdraw the required amount results in a steep 25% tax penalty on the amount you should’ve withdrawn, so it’s important to know how to calculate yours correctly. Let’s look at the example of a retirement account with a $500,000 balance.

Image source: Getty Images.

Three situations where you don’t have to take an RMD

You won’t have to take an RMD from your retirement account if any of the following are true:

• You’re under age 73: RMDs begin in the year you turn 73. If you turn 73 in 2025, you technically have until April 1, 2026 to take your first RMD. In all subsequent years, you must take RMDs no later than Dec. 31 of that year.
• It’s a Roth account: You fund Roth accounts with after-tax dollars, so you can enjoy tax-free withdrawals in retirement. Because of this, the government has no incentive to force you to take money out each year.
• The account is associated with your current employer: If you’re still working, you can delay RMDs from your current employer’s retirement plan until the year after the year you retire. However, you still have to take RMDs from old 401(k)s and traditional IRAs,if you have any.

If none of these things apply to you, then you will need to take an RMD. Fortunately, they’re not too difficult to calculate.

How to calculate your RMD on a $500,000 account

You calculate your RMD using the balance as of Dec. 31 of the previous year — Dec. 31, 2024 for your 2025 RMD. If you don’t know what your balance was at that time, you may need to look it up or speak to your plan administrator.

Once you know the amount, all you need to do is divide that by the distribution period next to your age in the IRS’ Uniform Lifetime Table. The result is your RMD.

So, for example, if you had $500,000 in your 401(k) as of Dec. 31, 2024 and you turned 73 in 2025, your RMD would be $500,000 divided by 27.4 — the distribution period for 73-year-olds. That comes out to about $18,248.

You’re free to take out more than this if you’d like. But this is the minimum amount you must withdraw in order to avoid the 25% penalty.

What if you don’t want to take your RMD?

Avoiding mandatory withdrawals generally isn’t worth it. The 25% penalty will likely cost you more than what you would’ve paid in income taxes if you’d just taken the RMD as scheduled.

That said, sometimes you may not want to deal with the extra taxes an RMD can bring. In that case, consider making a qualifying charitable distribution (QCD). This is where you ask your plan administrator to send an amount equal to your RMD or a portion of it to a qualifying tax-exempt organization.

The money must go directly to the charity. If the plan administrator distributes it to you first, it does not count, even if you give it all away to charitable causes. Done properly, the IRS won’t tax you on this retirement account withdrawal, and it’ll consider your RMD satisfied for the year.

The maximum QCD you can make in 2025 is $108,000. This should be more than enough for most people.

You may have already spent an amount equal to your RMD on living expenses this year. In that case, you’re in the clear until next year. Check with your plan administrator if you’re unsure how much you’ve already withdrawn from your accounts in 2025. If you come up a little short, be sure to make some more withdrawals in the next few weeks.

With the year winding down, older investors with money sitting in ordinary IRAs may soon need to withdraw at least some of it. It’s called a required minimum distribution, or RMD.

What’s the minimum? It depends on your age and the total market value of your retirement accounts as of the end of calendar 2024. Here’s the required minimum distribution on $50,000 worth of retirement savings at a range of ages, beginning with age 73, which is when RMD rules first kick in.

• 73: $1,886.79 (3.77%)
• 75: $2,032.52 (4.06%)
• 80: $2,475.25 (4.95%)
• 85: $3,125.00 (6.25%)
• 90: $4,095.36 (8.20%)
• 100: $7,812.50 (15.62%)

The size of the required — and taxable — distribution grows as you age, maxing out at 50% of the prior year’s ending balance for anyone lucky enough to reach the age of 120.

Important RMD rules

There are some noteworthy rules to consider here. Chief among them is that RMD rules only apply to ordinary IRAs like contributory/traditional IRAs, 401(k) accounts, or 403(b) accounts. They don’t apply to Roth IRAs.

Image source: Getty Images.

It’s also worth noting that you don’t necessarily need to take an RMD from each and every IRA you own. You can combine the value of all your ordinary IRAs and take a distribution from just one. And you can do the same for 403(b) accounts, although you can’t mix and match 403(b) and traditional IRA accounts. One key exception is 401(k) accounts; you must take your calculated minimum distribution from each and every one, assuming you own more than one.

As for timing, although your very first required minimum distribution doesn’t need to be completed until April 1 in the year after you turn 73, subsequent RMDs must be completed by the end of the calendar year. Just bear in mind that waiting until the last minute to take your first RMD means you’ll be taking two taxable distributions in the same tax year.

It has been painfully obvious, ever since the presidential election last November, that the Democratic Party’s brand is in tatters.

This week, a Quinnipiac University poll revealed that congressional Democrats have a minuscule 19% approval rating — an all-time low in the history of that particular poll. Earlier in the week, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll similarly found that the party as a whole has an approval rating of 40% — considerably lower than the Republican Party’s 48% approval rating found by the same poll. Nor can Democrats necessarily rely on any GOP infighting to redound, in seesaw-like fashion, to their own benefit; for all the sturm und drang generated by the “Epstein files” affair, President Trump’s approval ratings have actually increased among Republicans this month.

The issue for Democrats is that their current unpopularity is not a byproduct of the political scandals of the day or the vicissitudes of Trump’s polarizing social media feeds. Rather, the problem for Democrats is structural — and it requires a rethink and a reboot from soup to nuts. As this column argued last November, it is clear that Barack Obama’s winning 2008 political coalition — comprising racial and ethnic minorities, young people and highly educated white voters — has completely withered. “Obamaism” is dead — and Democrats have to reconcile themselves to that demise. At minimum, they should stop taking advice from Obama himself; the 44th president was Kamala Harris’ top 2024 campaign trail surrogate, and we saw how that worked out.

In order for the party to rise up anew, as has often happened throughout American history following a period of dominance from a partisan rival, Democrats are going to have to move beyond their intersectional obsessions and woke grievances that have so greatly alienated large swaths of the American people on issues pertaining to race, gender, immigration, and crime and public safety. And the good news, for conservative Americans who candidly wish the Democratic Party nothing but the worst, is that Democrats seem completely incapable of doing this.

Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old recent winner of New York City’s much-discussed Democratic mayoral primary, is a case in point.

The Ugandan-born Shiite Muslim Mamdani is a democratic socialist, but he is better understood as a full-fledged communist. That isn’t hyperbole: One merely needs to consider his proposed policies for New York City and review his broader history of extreme far-left political rhetoric. Mamdani won the primary, and is now seeking the mayor’s office, on a genuinely radical platform: support for citywide “free” bus rides, city-owned grocery stores, a full rent freeze on certain low-income units, outright seizure of private property from arbitrarily “bad” landlords, race-based taxation (an assuredly unconstitutional proposal), a $30 minimum wage and more. A true Marxist, Mamdani has said “abolition of private property” would be an improvement over existing inequality. And he has something of a penchant for quoting Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” too.

But Mamdani’s communism is only part of his overall political persona. He also emphasizes, and trades in, exactly the sort of woke culture warring and intersectional identity politics that have defined the post-Obama Democratic Party. Mamdani is a long-standing harsh critic of Israel who had declined to distance himself from the antisemitic rallying cry “globalize the intifada.” Most recently, he also opposed Trump’s decision to have the U.S. intervene in last month’s Israel-Iran war, condemning it as a “new, dark chapter” that could “plunge the world deeper into chaos.” (In the real world, there were zero American casualties, and the bombing run was followed promptly by a ceasefire.)

There is, to be sure, nothing good down this road for denizens of New York City. If Mamdani wins this fall, expect a massive exodus of people, businesses and capital from the Big Apple — probably to the Sun Belt. But even more relevant: There is nothing good down that road for the national Democratic Party, as a whole. In order to demonstrate that the party has learned anything from its 2024 shellacking and its current abysmal standing, it will have to sound and act less crazy on the tangible issues that affect Americans’ day-to-day lives.

That isn’t happening. If Mamdani’s rise is representative — and it may well be, especially as other far-left firebrands like Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) continue to make outsize noise — then Democrats seem to be moving in the exact opposite direction: full-on Marxism and woke craziness. If the party continues down this path, it will experience nothing but mid- to long-term political pain. But as one of the aforementioned conservatives who wishes the Democratic Party nothing but the worst, I’m not too upset about that.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

June 29 (UPI) — Group of Seven nations agreed to exempt U.S. companies from a 15% minimum corporate tax rate, the countries said in a joint statement.

The nonbinding deal was announced Saturday but still requires approval from the 38-member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that established the 2021 agreement on taxing companies. G-7 nations are part of the OECED.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had proposed a “side-by-side solution” for American-headquartered companies that would be exempt from the Income Inclusion Rule and Undertaxed Profits Rule “in recognition of the existing U.S. minimum tax rules to which they are subject.”

The massive spending bill now being considered in Congress originally included a “revenge tax” that would have imposed a levy of up to 20% on investments from countries that taxed U.S. companies.

“I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” Bessent wrote in a multi-post thread on X on Thursday.

The House has approved the massive legislation and the Senate is considering it.

“It is an honorable compromise as it spares us from the automatic retaliations of Section 899 of the Big, Beautiful Bill,” Italian Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti told local media.

“We are not claiming victory, but we obtained some concessions as the U.S. pledged to engage in OECD negotiations on fair taxation,” an unnamed French official told Politico Europe. The official called the “revenge tax” a potentially “huge burden for French companies.”

Trump has criticized this provision because he said it would limit sovereignty and send U.S. tax revenues to other countries.

“The Trump administration remains vigilant against all discriminatory and extraterritorial foreign taxes applied against Americans,” Bessent wrote Thursday.

Trump has imposed a July 9 deadline for U.S. trading partners to lower taxes on foreign goods, threatening high duties on the worst offenders, including 50% on goods from the 27 European Union members. In April, a baseline tariff was imposed on most U.S. trading partners, with higher rates on certain companies and products.

In 2021, nearly 140 countries agreed to tax multinational companies at the 15% minimum, regardless of where they were headquartered.

In late April, the European Union, Britain, Japan and Canada agreed to exempt the United States from the 15% minimum tax on companies.

“Delivery of a side-by-side system will facilitate further progress to stabilize the international tax system, including a constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy and on preserving the tax sovereignty of all countries,” the joint statement read.

The agreement, according to the statement, would ensure that any substantial risks identified “with respect to the level playing field, or risks of base erosion and profit shifting, are addressed to preserve the common policy objectives of the side-by-side system.”

The G-7 includes Britain, France, Germany, Italy in Europe, as well as Canada, Japan and U.S. Before 2014, the group was known as the G-8 until Russia was expelled after annexing the Crimea region of Ukraine.

The chairs of the House and Senate committees responsible for tax policy cheered the agreement.

“We applaud President Trump and his team for protecting the interests of American workers and businesses after years of congressional Republicans sounding the alarm on the Biden Administration’s unilateral global tax surrender under Pillar 2,” Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a press release.

The agreement also, however, has its critics.

“The U.S. is trying to exempt itself by arm-twisting others, which would make the tax deal entirely useless,” Markus Meinzer, director of policy at the Tax Justice Network, told Politico Europe. “A ship with a U.S.-sized hole in its hull won’t float.”

June 10 (UPI) — The federal minimum wage would rise to $15 per hour, with annual cost-of-living increases based on inflation, in a proposed bipartisan measure.

Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., co-sponsored the bill that they have named the “Higher Wages for American Workers Act” and would increase the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour for non-exempt workers.

“For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline,” Hawley said on Tuesday in a joint press release with Welch.

“One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hardworking Americans every day,” Hawley added.

Welch said inflation and rising costs are making it too hard for families to afford basic necessities.

“We’re in the midst of a severe affordability crisis, with families in red and blue states alike struggling to afford necessities like housing and groceries,” Welch said.

“A stagnant federal minimum wage only adds fuel to the fire,” he continued. “Every hardworking American deserves a living wage that helps put a roof over their head and food on the table — $7.25 an hour doesn’t even come close.”

“Times have changed, and working families deserve a wage that reflects today’s financial reality,” Welch added.

Hawley said the current federal minimum wage is less than what a worker earned in 1940 when adjusted for inflation.

If the proposed federal minimum wage increase is passed into law, it would take effect on Jan. 1 and allow cost-of-living increases that match inflation in subsequent years.

Many states have respective minimum wage laws that exceed the current and proposed federal minimum wage, but a dozen still were at the federal minimum wage in 2024.

Many large employers also have higher minimum wages, including Walmart, which has paid its workers at least $14 an hour and often more since 2023.

President Joe Biden in 2021 ordered the federal government to pay contract workers at least $15 an hour.

California lawmakers in 2022 raised the state’s minimum wage for many fast-food workers to up to $22 an hour.

WITH Brits continuing to count their pennies more than ever before, many are looking for ways on how to get by barely spending. 

From hunting down freebies, to spotting a hidden bargain or downloading apps for discounts, people are trying their best to not overspend. 

4

4

4

Luckily, money saving experts are sharing their top tips on social media so that everyone can get by without having to scrape the coins. 

Chloe, who is known as ‘chloesdealclub’ on TikTok, has recently shared a video showing how she manages to get a free breakfast from Lidl. 

And the best part about it? There’s no minimum spend either. 

Speaking to her 48.3k followers, Chloe explained that customers just need to download the Lidl Plus app and create a new account. 

She advised to get someone else in your household that doesn’t have one to do this if you have already got one. 

After downloading and signing up for the app, Chloe explained that you should receive three freebie coupons into your app. 

She showed that the coupons include a free Lidl tote bag, a bakery item, and fresh fruit. 

Chloe said: “So go to Lidl and get a pastry and some fruit, or you could even get stuff to make avocado on toast. There’s loads of options.” 

She added: “You’ve got a free breakfast and a bag to carry it home in.” 

In the caption section, Chloe also explained that there’s “no minimum spend so you can get these freebies without buying anything else.” 

The video received 78.5 views and 74 comments after four days of being shared on her account.

Many wanted to share their excitement after hearing the news. 

One wrote: “Got mine. Thank you for sharing.”

A second added: “Free strawberries! I’m going to get everyone in my house to download it!” 

Whilst a third said: “It’s true, I had also downloaded the Lidl app, from which I also got this shopping bag, muffins and many other things.”

4

The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to approve a sweeping package of minimum wage increases for workers in the tourism industry, despite objections from business leaders who warned that the region is already facing a slowdown in international travel.

The proposal, billed by labor leaders as the highest minimum wage in the country, would require hotels with more than 60 rooms, as well as companies doing business at Los Angeles International Airport, to pay their workers $30 per hour by 2028.

That translates to a 48% hike in the minimum wage for hotel employees over three years. Airport workers would see a 56% increase.

On top of that, hotels and airport businesses would be required to provide $8.35 per hour for their workers’ health care by July 2026.

The package of increases was approved on a 12-3 vote, with Councilmembers John Lee, Traci Park and Monica Rodriguez opposed. Because the tally was not unanimous, a second vote will be required next week.

Rodriguez, who represents the northeast San Fernando Valley, told her colleagues that the proposal would cause hotels and airport businesses to cut back on staffing, resulting in job losses. The same thing is happening at City Hall, with elected officials considering staff cuts to cover the cost of employee raises, she said.

“We are right now facing 1,600 imminent layoffs because the revenue is just not matching our expenditures,” Rodriguez said. “The same will happen in the private sector.”

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, standing before a crowded of unionized workers after the vote, celebrated their victory.

“It’s been way too long, but finally, today, this building is working for the people, not the corporations,” said Soto-Martínez, a former organizer with the hotel and restaurant union Unite Here Local 11.

Hotel owners, business groups and airport concession companies predicted the wage increases will deal a fresh blow to an industry that never fully recovered from the COVID pandemic. They pointed to the recent drop-off in tourism from Canada and elsewhere that followed President Trump’s trade war and tightening of the U.S. border.

Adam Burke, president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board, said Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom — nations that send a large number of visitors to Los Angeles — have issued formal advisories about visiting the U.S.

“The 2025 outlook is not encouraging,” Burke said.

Several hotel owners have warned that the higher wage will spur them to scale back their restaurant operations. A few flatly stated that hotel companies would steer clear of future investments in the city, which has long served as a global tourism destination.

Jackie Filla, president and chief executive of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, said she believes that hotels will close restaurants or other small businesses on their premises — and in some cases, shut down entirely.

In the short term, she said, some will tear up their “room block” agreements, which set aside rooms for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

“I don’t think anybody wants to do this,” Filla said. “Hotels are excited to host guests. They’re excited to be participating in the Olympics. But they can’t go into it losing money.”

Jessica Durrum, a policy director with the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a pro-union advocacy group, said business leaders also issued dire warnings about the economy when previous wage increases were approved — only to be proven wrong. Durrum, who is in charge of her group’s Tourism Workers Rising campaign, told the council that a higher wage would only benefit the region.

“People with more money in their pockets — they spend it,” she said.

Wednesday’s vote delivered a huge victory to Unite Here Local 11, a potent political force at City Hall. The union is known for knocking on doors for favored candidates, spending six figures in some cases to get them elected.

Unite Here Local 11 had billed the proposal as an “Olympic wage,” one that would ensure that its members have enough money to keep up with inflation. The union, working with airport workers represented by Service Employees International Union-United Service Workers West, also said that corporations should not be the only ones to benefit from the Olympic Games in 2028.

Workers from both of those unions testified about their struggles to pay for rising household costs, including rent, food and fuel. Some pleaded for better health care, while others spoke about having to work multiple jobs to support their families.

“We need these wages. Please do what’s right,” said Jovan Houston, a customer service agent at LAX. “Do this for workers. Do this for single families. Do this for parents like myself.”

Sonia Ceron, 38, a dishwasher at airline catering company Flying Food Group, said she has a second job cleaning houses in Beverly Hills for about 32 hours a week. Ceron lives in a small studio apartment in Inglewood, which has been difficult for her 12-year-old daughter.

“My daughter, like every kid, wants to have her own room, to be able to call her friends and have her privacy. Right now, that’s impossible,” Ceron said.

L.A.’s political leaders have enacted a number of wage laws over the last few decades. The hotel minimum wage, approved by the council in 2014, currently stands at $20.32 per hour. The minimum wage for private-sector employees at LAX is $25.23 per hour, once the required $5.95 hourly healthcare payment is included.

For nearly everyone else in L.A., the hourly minimum wage is $17.28, 78 cents higher than the state’s.

Perched high above the Cahuenga Pass, the 24-story Hilton Los Angeles Universal City Hotel is positioned to be a prime gathering spot for visitors arriving for the 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Sun Hill Properties Inc., which manages the 495-room hotel, has already signed a “room block” agreement with the LA28 organizing committee, reserving hundreds of rooms for Olympics fans. The City Council recently approved a plan to let the Hilton add a second, 18-story tower, which would open just in time for the Olympics.

Now, the future of the $250-million expansion is in doubt. On Wednesday, the Los Angeles City Council is set to vote on a requirement that hotels with 60 or more rooms pay their workers at least $30 per hour by 2028, along with a new $8.35 per hour healthcare payment.

If the council approves the proposal without significant changes, Sun Hill “absolutely will be pulling out of the room block for the Olympics,” said Mark Davis, the company’s president and chief executive. The hotel’s investors will also kill the 395-room expansion, he said.

“Our board was very adamant that if [council members] go forward with this nonsense, that it’s dead,” Davis said. “They’re going to move the project somewhere else.”

The council voted 12-3 last year to instruct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to draft the package of minimum wage hikes, which would apply not just to hotels but also private companies at Los Angeles International Airport, such as airlines and concessions. The minimum wage would be the highest in the country, according to Unite Here Local 11, the hotel and restaurant workers union, which has championed the proposal.

Mark Davis, president and CEO of Sun Hill Properties, said a proposal to hike L.A.’s minimum wage for hotel workers would kill a plan for a new 18-story hotel tower unless it is reworked.

(Marcus Ubungen / Los Angeles Times)

Backers of the higher wage say L.A.’s tourism workers are struggling to pay for food and rent, and deserve to benefit financially from the Olympics just as much as private corporations. They dismiss the hospitality industry’s dire warnings, including the notion that increased wages will scuttle the development of new hotels.

City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez said the Sheraton Universal Hotel, a nearby competitor of the Hilton, has already been paying a higher wage to its unionized workforce. The real threat to the development of new hotels, he said, is higher interest rates and the economic uncertainty surrounding President Trump’s trade policies.

“So, I just don’t buy it,” said Soto-Martínez, a former hotel union organizer, as he referred to Davis’ warning.

Under the city’s proposal, the hotel and airport minimum wage would reach $22.50 on July 1. It would jump to $25 in July 2026, $27.50 in July 2027 and $30 in July 2028. On top of those increases, the $8.35 per hour healthcare payment would go into effect on Jan. 1.

Business groups point out that two hotels have closed in the past year — Four Points by Sheraton next to LAX and Mama Shelter in Hollywood, for a loss of 270 jobs. They say Trump’s trade wars are driving down tourist activity from other nations, with visitors from Canada especially lagging.

Once the increases are in effect, business leaders say, hotels with on-site dining won’t be able to compete with non-hotel restaurants, which will have a much lower minimum wage.

Jon Bortz, chairman and chief executive of the Pebblebrook Hotel Trust, said his company is already looking at scaling back restaurant operations at two of its Southern California properties — the Kimpton Hotel Palomar and the W Los Angeles West Beverly Hills, both in Westwood near UCLA.

The Palomar will likely offset the cost of the higher minimum wage by converting its restaurant into a self-service breakfast operation, while the W will probably close at least one of its two restaurants, Bortz said. “We have to change the business model of these properties to have any hope of surviving,” he added.

Bortz said the proposed wage hikes, along with other hotel regulations approved by the City Council in recent years, have spurred Pebblebrook to look to other markets for new hotel projects.

“Frankly, the [L.A.] market, from a broad-based buyer perspective, has been crossed off the map by investors,” he said.

Hotels in other parts of L.A. are considering similar reductions. An executive with Lightstone Group, which owns the 727-room Moxy + AC Hotels near the Convention Center, told City Council members last year that the minimum wage proposal would likely result in the closure of Level 8, a collection of restaurants on the hotel’s eighth floor.

Mark Beccaria, a partner with the Hotel Angeleno near the 405 Freeway, said in a separate letter to city leaders that he would have to shutter not just the hotel’s restaurant but also its valet parking, eliminating 39 jobs.

“Common sense says you cannot raise wages over 50% in a year when revenues are down,” he said.

Kurt Petersen, co-president of Unite Here Local 11, accused the hotels of fear-mongering, saying they are misrepresenting the potential impact of the planned wage hikes. Hotel owners, he said, “act like the sky is falling every time they have to share profits with their workers.”

“This ‘Chicken Little’ stuff has got to end. Every single time, hotels cry poverty, and then a day later, they’re doing fine. It’s always the same routine,” Petersen said. “What’s not falling is rent and healthcare. What’s not sustainable is workers not earning enough to live in Los Angeles.”

The hospitality industry issued similar warnings a decade ago — when the council approved the current hotel minimum wage — only to see tourism flourish in the years that immediately followed, said Víctor Sánchez, executive director of the L.A. Alliance for a New Economy, a pro-labor advocacy group that produced a report on that phenomenon.

In Long Beach, where residents voted to raise the hotel minimum wage last year, revenue per available room was up 15.7% in March compared with the same month the prior year, said Sánchez, citing data from the real estate group CoStar.

L.A.’s political leaders have enacted a number of wage laws over the last few decades. The hotel minimum wage, approved by the council in 2014, is currently $20.32 per hour. The minimum wage for private-sector employees at LAX is $25.23 per hour, once the required $5.95 hourly healthcare payment is included. Then there’s the minimum wage for nearly everyone else in L.A., which is $17.28 per hour — 78 cents higher than the state’s.

The hourly minimum wage for hotel and airport workers was already slated to go up this year, as part of regularly scheduled increases in the city’s wage laws. Once the council showed interest in the much larger increases, business leaders began warning that hotel developers would take their business elsewhere.

Few were as dramatic as Davis, who told council members that their proposal, as drafted, would “likely kill” the Universal City Hilton’s 395-room expansion.

Davis, whose company has hotels in Simi Valley, Colorado Springs, Colo., and the greater Denver area, said his board instructed him last year to look at acquiring property outside of California, in markets that “make more sense financially for an investment of $250 million.”

“The owners investing this money, they have to look at the numbers,” he said in an interview. “Any project survives only by its numbers.”

The Universal City Hilton already pays most of its workers more than $25 per hour, while also offering healthcare coverage, Davis said. If those health plans have a financial value lower than the $8.35 per hour, the company will need to make up the difference, he said.

Davis said he, too, is looking at scaling back restaurant operations, which would likely require layoffs.

At one point, Davis’ project drew support from the city’s political leaders.

The Universal City Hilton reached an agreement early on with construction trade unions, promising to pay a higher prevailing wage to the estimated 1,000 construction workers who would work on the new tower.

In August, the council voted unanimously to seek an economic analysis that would determine whether the city should provide taxpayer assistance to the project. The analysis, requested by Councilmembers Nithya Raman and Soto-Martínez, would have explored whether to allow the hotel to keep a share of the tax revenues generated by the new tower.

Raman, whose district includes a portion of Universal City, did not respond to questions from The Times about the project — or the potential impact of the higher tourism wage.

In recent days, the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles has been appealing directly to Mayor Karen Bass, purchasing digital ads that ask her to intervene on the minimum wage issue.

Bass, in an interview earlier this year, said she wants hotel workers to “make a decent living” while also ensuring that their employers “are able to survive.”

“We have to make sure that we can address both — that we can address the needs of the workers without crippling the industry,” she said.