I agree that income inequality is a significant problem in our country, but more importantly I believe that access to income inequality is a far greater problem. 

The difference is that when you speak only about income inequality, you fail to recognize exactly why there is income inequality in the first place. The answer is that the people at the top have far greater access to income than the people at the bottom. The wealthy most likely attended far better schools, were better prepared for success by their parents and environment and had more access to capital than those at the bottom. 

We can best close the gap between the top and bottom, in the long run, by closing the gap between accesses to income. This can be done through things such as increased education funding to provide workers with the skills necessary to be more competitive in the market, or providing government sponsored interest-free loans, and small business tax credits for low-income people who have good business plans. These programs would need increased financial investments, and I do agree that highly profitable corporations should increase their contribution to such programs. That is why I would propose not to raise the minimum wage, but to instead raise the corporate income tax and/or the top income tax brackets. What guarantee does the government have that minimum wage workers will invest all their money properly in areas that will help them move up in society and away from low-skill jobs, such as investing in their own or their children’s education, or making financial investments that will provide for their future? 

Raising the minimum wage would be one way to redistribute the wealth, but frankly I think it would be like putting a Band-Aid on a cancerous tumor. It may look nice but it sure doesn’t solve the main problem: Low skill workers make low wages because they have low skills. 

If we’re going to tax business, let’s make sure the revenue from that tax is in full control of the government, so the chance of it being invested properly is increased. The government can also control prices better if the redistribution is done through social programs, so the private market doesn’t cancel the effect of the redistribution by simply raising prices in accordance with the increases wages.

A low wage in the fast-food industry and increased corporate tax revenue used to decrease education cost would incentivize workers to move away from being used by McDonald’s and instead learn the skills necessary to compete with the McDonald’s of the world. On the other hand, what incentive does a low-skilled worker have to seek education if their wages are raised? 

One last point: You claim a rich person saving their money doesn’t contribute to the economy. What do you think they’re doing with their money? Stuffing it in their mattress? Rich people save just the same as anyone else. By investing their money in businesses, the stock market or banks who then invest in business, their money affects the economy just the same as anyone elses—by contributing to the national pool of capital that drives economic growth.