“Redistribute the wealth”

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...If you create $14 per hour of profit and the employer pays you $15 per hour he's no longer an employer, he's a philanthropist giving you $1 per hour for nothing. He will stop giving away money for nothing when he has no more money to give....

Well, he’s going to have to give it to somebody. Either that or he’ll have to do what a lot of other businesses would do and move out of the country....

--and a third choice is to elect a government that allows us to create wealth that the gov't won't confiscate. That's really how it works, because wealth creators only live in countries whose governments don't rob them.

But the left doesn't believe that. They believe that when you raise taxes (or in this case, wages) the rich guy just has to dig deeper in his pockets or do without one yacht.

And don't laugh, because they really do believe it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

 

[expat_panama]

...If you create $14 per hour of profit and the employer pays you $15 per hour he's no longer an employer, he's a philanthropist giving you $1 per hour for nothing. He will stop giving away money for nothing when he has no more money to give...

...a better solution I have heard is to have the government pay the employee the difference per hour so he still is making 15hr... ...The government pays for this by simply raising taxes...

--taxes paid by the employer or paid by the employee?

 

[expat_panama]

...They believe that when you raise taxes (or in this case, wages) the rich guy just has to dig deeper in his pockets or do without one yacht. And don't laugh, because they really do believe it.

My choice is to either laugh or cry. OK, I know it's sad but it's also rediculous:

I mean, ya can't buy comedy like this!

 

[danielpalos]

... An employer will only pay someone $15.25 per hour if that employee can produce more than $15.25 per hour in profit. Otherwise the employee gets sacked and the employer finds someone else who can.

...I march into my employer or supervisors office and demand a raise, he has two choices...

If you create $14 per hour of profit and the employer pays you $15 per hour he's no longer an employer, he's a phylanthropist giving you $1 per hour for nothing. He will stop giving away money for nothing when he has no more money to give.

Related:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
‏Verified account @Ocasio2018

US House candidate, NY-14
The restaurant I used to work at is closing its doors.​

Ocasio-Cortez Mourns Restaurant Driven Out Of Business By Minimum Wage Law She Backs​

What she didn't say is that it is closing because the owners can't afford New York City's soon-to-be $15 minimum wage — the very job-killing policy Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Democrats want to impose nationwide.

Job killing?

Maybe they just wanted to retire.

Some employers on the problem solving left coast add a surcharge and pass the cost to customers, until they get more efficient. Technology is improving all the time. If people still come in to buy stuff, what is the problem.

 

[g5000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

There is natural accumulation of wealth, and there is unnatural accumulation of wealth. Our Founders actually studied this matter in depth, which is why men like Thomas Jefferson believed in a progressive tax.

The natural accumulation of wealth is achieved through innovation. If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. The government should interfere in this kind of wealth creation as little as possible.

The unnatural accumulation of wealth is achieved through legislation which tilts the playing field in the favor of special interests.

One of the methods used the most in our system of government to tilt the playing field is by the means of tax expenditures. Credits, exemptions and deductions. I have written at length about this subject on this forum for the past six or seven years.

Tax expenditures transfer about $1.4 trillion of wealth UP the income ladder. While ignorant fools are whining about food stamps stealing from the rest of us, they are deliberately kept ignorant of the fact that tax expenditures add up to TWICE the amount of all social welfare programs.

So if you want to eliminate the "wealth gap", or whatever you want to call it, banning tax expenditures is a critical means of achieving this.

Lefties would have you believe the solution is to tax the rich more.

No. No, no, no, no. When you tax the rich more, you are punishing the innocent with the guilty. You are hurting the innovators with the leeches.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Well that's the issue. republicans believe in the market. If you do a job that requires a skill you get paid more. If you're good at your job, there are bidding wars. If you do jobs that are low skill, then there is plenty of people and no bidding war.
But the first thing is the min wage, we need to quit acting like people raise their entire family on a min wage income, because its for entry level jobs that usually teenagers do or people who want an easy second job...
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

 

[Cellblock2429]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

/----/ Who is the idiot demanding $15 an hour? Nobody can live in Palm Springs on that. We demand $50 an hour now.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

There is natural accumulation of wealth, and there is unnatural accumulation of wealth. Our Founders actually studied this matter in depth, which is why men like Thomas Jefferson believed in a progressive tax.

The natural accumulation of wealth is achieved through innovation. If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. The government should interfere in this kind of wealth creation as little as possible.

The unnatural accumulation of wealth is achieved through legislation which tilts the playing field in the favor of special interests.

One of the methods used the most in our system of government to tilt the playing field is by the means of tax expenditures. Credits, exemptions and deductions. I have written at length about this subject on this forum for the past six or seven years.

Tax expenditures transfer about $1.4 trillion of wealth UP the income ladder. While ignorant fools are whining about food stamps stealing from the rest of us, they are deliberately kept ignorant of the fact that tax expenditures add up to TWICE the amount of all social welfare programs.

So if you want to eliminate the "wealth gap", or whatever you want to call it, banning tax expenditures is a critical means of achieving this.

Lefties would have you believe the solution is to tax the rich more.

No. No, no, no, no. When you tax the rich more, you are punishing the innocent with the guilty. You are hurting the innovators with the leeches.

I agree with you, it's rare but this is on of those times. LESS government helps, less laws. The problem is we need laws written for regular folks, not lawyers and we don't need thousands of pages for most of these things....that's were the corruption comes in.

 

[Richard-H]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

'Wealth Redistribution' is a term propagated by the wealthy as an excuse to stop any form of change that favors working people.

What liberals want is NOT 'Wealth Redistribution' AT ALL. What we want is 'FAIR Wealth distribution' GOING FORWARD.

People should get paid on par with the productive value of their work. That's all.

 

[Richard-H]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

 

[g5000]

Another means to artificially create an unnatural accumulation of wealth via legislation is to create burdensome regulations whose sole purpose is to prevent newcomers to the market from being able to break into that market.

Some regulations are made just to preserve the roost of sclerotic companies whose business model is outdated.

Our markets need a constant inflow of fresh blood in order to thrive. But our government goes out of its way to protect obsolete companies.


Our government is bought and paid for. Our legislators are paid a lot of campaign cash to insert and preserve tax expenditures in our tax code. And they are paid a lot of campaign cash to insert and preserve burdensome and unnecessary regulations.

I don't believe we should have no regulation. I believe we should have SMART regulation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

'Wealth Redistribution' is a term propagated by the wealthy as an excuse to stop any form of change that favors working people.

What liberals want is NOT 'Wealth Redistribution' AT ALL. What we want is 'FAIR Wealth distribution' GOING FORWARD.

People should get paid on par with the productive value of their work. That's all.

Says who? People are paid by the value of their work according to their employer.

 

[danielpalos]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Well that's the issue. republicans believe in the market. If you do a job that requires a skill you get paid more. If you're good at your job, there are bidding wars. If you do jobs that are low skill, then there is plenty of people and no bidding war.
But the first thing is the min wage, we need to quit acting like people raise their entire family on a min wage income, because its for entry level jobs that usually teenagers do or people who want an easy second job...
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

We need a higher minimum wage to generate more tax revenue; the poor can help pay their share.

 

[Richard-H]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Paying people their 'Market value' only means paying the lowest possible wage...if they can replace you with a more desperate worker that they can pay less.. they will. This means that employers have a vested interest in paying as little as possible - and keeping as many people as they can as desperate as possible.

If 20 people flip hamburgers and bring in millions in profits for their employers they deserve a lot more than $15/hr. It doesn't matter if they can be replaced with someone more desperate than they. THEY are doing the work that's earning those millions, and they deserve a fair cut of the profits.

ONLY productive work creates wealth. Those that do the work deserve a fair cut of the profits.

 

[Richard-H]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

'Wealth Redistribution' is a term propagated by the wealthy as an excuse to stop any form of change that favors working people.

What liberals want is NOT 'Wealth Redistribution' AT ALL. What we want is 'FAIR Wealth distribution' GOING FORWARD.

People should get paid on par with the productive value of their work. That's all.

Says who? People are paid by the value of their work according to their employer.

No they're not! They are paid the least that employers can get away with.

How many unions forced wages higher than the employers wanted to pay? How many union shops remained very profitable long after those wages went up?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Paying people their 'Market value' only means paying the lowest possible wage...if they can replace you with a more desperate worker that they can pay less.. they will. This means that employers have a vested interest in paying as little as possible - and keeping as many people as they can as desperate as possible.

If 20 people flip hamburgers and bring in millions in profits for their employers they deserve a lot more than $15/hr. It doesn't matter if they can be replaced with someone more desperate than they. THEY are doing the work that's earning those millions, and they deserve a fair cut of the profits.

ONLY productive work creates wealth. Those that do the work deserve a fair cut of the profits.

If that's what you believe, then get a job that offers profit sharing as a benefit. If your company doesn't offer profit sharing, buy stock in your company and share the wealth. But don't expect anybody to hand their wealth over to you for nothing.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Well that's the issue. republicans believe in the market. If you do a job that requires a skill you get paid more. If you're good at your job, there are bidding wars. If you do jobs that are low skill, then there is plenty of people and no bidding war.
But the first thing is the min wage, we need to quit acting like people raise their entire family on a min wage income, because its for entry level jobs that usually teenagers do or people who want an easy second job...
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

We need a higher minimum wage to generate more tax revenue; the poor can help pay their share.

Huh?
I think we don't need a min wage, companies will do it when it's best for them.
Walt Disney World workers land deal for $1,000 bonuses and $15 minimum wage