Raise Minimum Wage? Progressive Taxes? Let the Rich Decide!

There is so much debate over whether the U.S. should raise the minimum wage or make income taxes more progressive. I say we should just let the rich people vote on what to do with their money.

quote:

---

"The Rich Also Worry about the Wealth Gap" from CBS Money Watch:

​

About half of America's millionaires favor boosting the federal minimum wage, which stands at $7.25 an hour; only 38 percent oppose giving low-income workers a raise.

​

Meanwhile, about 41 percent of millionaires are against raising taxes on the country's top earners, while 44 percent said they support the idea.

---

The rich seem to know what is best for their money; it's about time we let them decide what the U.S. does with it.

I'm not suggesting anything.I'm pointing out that even many of the wealthy see wealth inequality as a problem they are willing to spend money to fix.

I'm not sure why this topic is so difficult for you, Phat.We have had plenty of threads here that dealt with wealth/income inequality. The method to fixing the problem has always been higher pay for regular folk and higher taxes on the wealthy.The article tells us that even many (though not a majority) of wealthy people agree with this. The point is that it is not us versus them; it's us plus a good chunk of them versus a small chunk of them.I think the observation offered in the article leads to a lot of interesting questions, such as: if the solutions are so obvious and even a large number of the wealthy seem to think it would be good to pay their employees more and be taxed at a higher rate, why are we still moving in the opposite direction? Or: if so many wealthy people think wealthy people should pay more taxes, why do so many poor people think they shouldn't?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Build computers for someone else, obviously.

I see your proposals as far beyond 'trickle up'.To me, they look more like hippy-commune economics: people doing good things for the sake of doing good things.I don't think that works. It never has. Doesn't now. And I don't see it ever working in the future. No. The economy is made of people creating stuff and exchanging it for other stuff. Moving money around is what all those 'fat-cats' do that none of us like. There are a couple of threads on this; there might be some hints that this is not a sustainable pattern.If you look at those threads, you will see evidence that a consumerism economy is not ever-sustaining. When people become satiated with their level of consumption, the model ceases to create further economic growth. And it is very likely that we are approaching (or at) a point where people's consumption of many goods/services is at the maximum possible level.There are few options around this in a consumerism economy. We can produce stuff that people haven't consumed fully, yet, such as healthcare. We can product junk and try harder and harder to convince people to consume it.Or we can look for a way to maintain economic prosperity without companies always having to turn out junk products of increasingly less utility. But that will mean moving away from consumerism.I think finding a new way of doing things will probably be the only sustainable solution.And that means that your model of people earning more money and buying more stuff to fuel economic activity doesn't necessarily work.Jon

I'm sure he also takes a lot more than you do too.