>and the plurality of them are service workers making gratuity, bartenders, servers etc
yeah once again an example of the cost of living and cost of goods being inflated for the consumer, by policies designed to protect the corporation. Companies are allowed to pay their people nothing because of the crowdsourced mandated contributions of strangers.
Also I'm not sure what your point really is. This is all just a distraction. The fact that most Americans make more than $7 an hour works AGAINST your point. If we wanted to be competing with China or Mexico, we'd need to be paying WAY more of our workers WAY less than is economically plausible. >>3770528>The people that need food stamps and other forms of welfare are already getting them tho.
Yeah and it costs the government billions and billions a year. Every walmart costs taxpayers ~a million dollars a year through medicaid and foodstamps and other government entitlements given to their underpayed employees. When companies don't pay their employees enough, we cover the difference. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/18/there-is-no-walmart-tax-every-tax-day-we-get-told-there-is-and-every-year-its-still-untrue/#1bb82fee41fehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#5f5adf6b720bhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/we-are-spending-153-billion-a-year-to-subsidize-mcdonalds-and-walmarts-low-wage-workers/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens> As we'd established up-thread, a 70% tax on "the rich" would net 72 billion additional dollars
Imagine how many slated steel fences that could build! And we're not really just talking about a 70% tax on "the rich." We just cut $2 trillion a year, mostly in corporate taxes. You corporate protectionists are trained to ignore that and just pretend like it's an attack on "the rich."