Just for fun, I researched some history of federal minimum wage rates. Then I went to
www.inflationdata.com "Inflation Calculator" to see how current federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. stacks up against that of the last half century.
In 1966, the minimum wage was $1.25/hr. One would have to make $9.14/hr. to have the same purchasing power. Todays minimum wage earner is making 20.7% less than their 1966 counterpart.
In 1991, the minimum wage went up to $4.25/hr. One would need to make $7.40/hr. to equal their counterpart of a quarter of a century ago. Shortfall of 2.1%.
Every time I hear the buzzword "confiscatory tax rates, I just roll my eyes.

Current corporate, and high income earner tax rates are at or near post WW2 lows.
If one says making the rich less rich won't help others, I say putting more money in rich peoples pockets will not (and has not) helped others either.
Put another away, putting more money in wealthy 1% pocket will not automatically result in more hiring. Corporations are sitting on huge piles of cash, and what do they do with that $$ ? Why they either buy other companies or do stock buy backs. If company can make money without hiring any extra people, why do it ? (Hire more people)
Now I don't advocate a knee jerk sock it to the rich solution, but having the historically low tax rates of the last 3 decades or so brings us to the wage stagnation and wealth disparity that we have today. Maybe putting more money in a greater number of households pockets will
actually cause people to spend more money, which in turn creates demand for more products, and hence more jobs. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.
Bookmarks