Employer tax benefits of 401k matching vs salary increase

Question

I was trying to understand why a company would offer 401k matching instead of higher salaries to employees.

I read that some states require companies to offer retirement things which makes sense.

One answer in this question mentions matching encourages more employee buy-in to a 401k, allowing Highly Compensated employees to benefit more. Presumably Highly Compensated employees are the owner or management who have the power to decide whether the company includes a 401k. But this answer doesn't make sense, because there is no reason for the Highly Compensated employees to prefer a 401k instead of just privately doing a Roth or IRA. The linked question says that a company 401k even limits the amount they can benefit from IRAs.

A comment chain of another answer in the link debates whether companies save taxes when using 401k matching instead of salary increase, but it didn't resolve in agreement.

Which leads to my question. Is there a tax benefit to employers to offer 401k, or 401k with matching, instead of increasing employee salaries?

Answer 1

Salaries are subject to a 7.65% payroll tax; 401k matches are not.

Answer 2

They can offer it as a benefit, but not everybody will take advantage.

If you make 50,000 and the maximum match is 5%; then they have to budget 2,500 for the match. Some people won't participate. Some won't fully participate. That increases the company profits, while being able to advertise the match.

Also if they increase your salary instead of the match, then the increase is forever. Plus they have to say we don't match.

Sometimes the benefit to the company isn't because of taxes.