system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Raising minimum wage isn't the answer to poverty and correcting the wage gap. We need to institute a maximum pay gap within companies, get rid of tax loopholes for the super rich and stop taxing low income brackets

Disclaimer: This was written from a Canadian point of view, having seen minimum wage rise, and the effects it has had on my Provence, cost of living and other challenges we face, but I do think it would also benefit America and other countries in a similar wage to cost of living situation. The research I did was mostly based on American wage and tax history due to the availability as well as the expected readers and response, though Canadian numbers were very similar. The rise of minimum wage and cost of living inflation was more focused on Ontario pricing and wage correlations, because I have personally witnessed it, and believe it to be the best example of what will happen if similar systems ie. the US were to try as well. I broke down my opinion into 4 seperate points so you can pick at any leg of the table you choose.

Minimum wage: Raising minimum wage has historically backfired. While the reason for the institution of a minimum wage remains important, the way the economy reacts to it is different and more volatile. When minimum wage rises, workers getting paid higher than minimum wage don't get a raise, and the perceived value of the work drops. At the same time, the people setting the costs, raise their prices. Now, some people who could comfortably afford things cannot, and those who couldn't afford it before still cannot. This doesn't effect the rich at all, but hurts the middle and lower earning classes. This is why this option is not a solution, and we need to stop using it.

Maximum wage gap: Instead of raising minimum wage, we need to incentivize the billion dollar industries to pay their employees better, and help people making low end wages earn more. The best way I see in doing this is enforcing a 10:1 pay ratio for highest earning in the company vs lowest. I could understand an argument for owners making 25:1 because they have to hold the liabilityand chance of failure. It should all be based on hourly wages, and salaried positions can only be based around a 40 hour work week. Management/ownership pays themselves a bonus, everyone else gets at least 10% of that. While this seems like small numbers, it would actually result in a massive pay jump for pretty much the entire working class, as employee to employer earnings are currently sitting at about 221:1. It would take a huge hit to the super wealthy, but that is kind of the point, redustribute and balancing the wealth, and making it so everyone can put food on the table, correcting a flaw in the capitalist system without completely removing the free market. Making highly profitable businesses pay their epmloyees better without raising minimum wage and making businesses with tighter profit margins go under.

Taxing low incomes: The majority of the taxes paid come from business tax. Income tax provides a much smaller slice of the pie. Of that smaller slice, the top 1% pay about 40%. The amount that comes from the bottom tax brackets is negligible from the government side, but the amount thats taken from the under 50k brackets makes a huge difference in their quality of life. By not taxing the first 50k in income it makes living on lower incomes a lot more sustainable. This is a choice that could drastically effect quality of life, and help give everyone  an equal chance and leading a successful, happy and not have to decide between eating, paying taxes and having a place to live.

Tax Loopholes: So with the top 1% paying 40% of income taxes, you would think they are doing their part. The issue with that is once you start getting into those who control more than 100 million, those individuals end up usually not paying very much as they are able to invest in what they need to hit tax writeoffs to the point of negating paying anything. While the amounts the low income group is paying is negligible, the amount the 100 million plus are writing off and avoid are not. By eliminating write offs and making the payments mandatory for anyone earning more than 1 million, we are more than covering the bit the government are losing by not taxing those who need it, and getting even more to work with to provide nessiscary services. What ends up being done with that money is a different debate, but this would result in a better balanced tax system, putting the burden on those who can provide, and taking it away from those who struggle to.
gpt
The issue with this is you are misunderstanding how these people at the top are making money. No one is making 100 million in a salary or a bonus or anything like that. Comments like: "The issue with that is once you start getting into those who control more than 100 million, those individuals end up usually not paying very much as they are able to invest in what they need to hit tax writeoffs to the point of negating paying anything." Do not even make sense. Because that is not how that works. They aren't writing of 10s of millions in taxes. 

Most wealthy people have their **wealth** increase by owning assets that have increased in value. They aren't paid. They aren't avoiding taxes or writing it off because they haven't observed any gain until they actually sell those assets. So even though they have a massively increasing net worth, they haven't actually "made" the money yet. Those kinds of gains are called capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than your standard income tax, in part because we want to incentive this type of activity. 

So if we look at someone like Bezos. He had a salary of under 100K his entire time at Amazon. So how did he become the wealthiest man? Because he owned an asset (Amazon shares) that exploded in value. And when he sells those shares he then pays a capital gains tax on the amount he made.